Dog Control Act 1996

Miscellaneous provisions

73: No liability where dog wounded in attempt to destroy

You could also call this:

"No liability if you hurt a dog while trying to destroy it in a reasonable way"

If you are allowed to destroy a dog under the Dog Control Act 1996 and you do it in a reasonable way, you will not be in trouble with the law for hurting or killing the dog. You might hurt the dog while trying to destroy it, but if you do it in a reasonable way, you will still not be in trouble. If you hurt a dog while trying to destroy it, you must try to stop its suffering as soon as possible.

If you hurt a dog while trying to destroy it and you do not try to stop its suffering, the law will not protect you from getting in trouble. You must take all reasonable steps to end the dog's suffering if you hurt it while trying to destroy it. This means you have to do what you can to make sure the dog does not suffer for a long time.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM375464.


Previous

72A: Power of dog control officer or dog ranger to seize released dog, or

"When can dog control officers take a dog that was released incorrectly?"


Next

74: Limitation of liability for damage, or

"People doing their job under the Dog Control Act can't be sued for damage they cause."

73No liability where dog wounded in attempt to destroy

  1. No person who is entitled under this Act to destroy any dog, and who does so in a reasonable manner or who wounds or maims the dog in the course of attempting to so destroy it, shall be under any criminal or civil liability for the injury done to the dog or its death.

  2. Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to any person who wounds or maims a dog in the course of attempting to destroy it and does not take all reasonable steps to terminate its suffering.

Compare
  • 1982 No 42 s 81