Pegg v. Gray

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Torts

TortsTrespassAnimalstrespassdogshuntingfox huntinganimals

Facts

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, on numerous occasions and without permission, intentionally sent his pack of dogs onto, over, and across the plaintiff's land in pursuit of foxes. The evidence permitted an inference that the defendant either sent the dogs there or released them knowing they likely would go onto the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff alleged substantial damage to fences and other property. The case was pleaded and tried as an action for trespass.

Issue

Whether a dog owner may be held liable in civil trespass when, for the purpose of sport, he intentionally sends dogs onto another's land, or releases them knowing they are likely to go there in pursuit of game, even though he does not personally enter the land.

Rule

When a dog roams onto another's land of its own volition, the owner is not liable absent statute unless the dog had a known propensity to commit the complained-of depredation. But where an owner or keeper, for sport, intentionally sends a dog onto another's land or releases it with actual or constructive knowledge that it is likely to enter another's land in pursuit of game, and no prior permission to hunt has been obtained, the owner or keeper is liable for trespass even if he does not personally go upon the land.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Ohio, Nolan Price regularly hunts rabbits with a pack of beagles. Standing on his own pasture line, he opens the trailer and releases the dogs toward a brushy strip on Vera Mendez's adjoining farm, fully expecting they will cross her fence in pursuit of game, and they do so without her permission.

If Vera sues Nolan for civil trespass, which is the strongest argument for liability?

Explanation. The majority distinguished ordinary roaming from hunting cases. When an owner or keeper, for sport, intentionally sends dogs onto another's land or releases them with actual or constructive knowledge they are likely to go there in pursuit of game, and no permission has been obtained, the owner is liable in trespass even without personally entering. The known-propensity rule applies to a dog's independent roaming, not to intentional hunting use. Criminal statutes do not control the civil trespass question. (Derived from Pegg v. Gray (n.d.).)