A. It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal known to be vicious and liable to attack or injure human beings unless such animal is securely kept to prevent injury to any person.

B. It is unlawful to keep any unvaccinated dog or cat or any animal with any symptom of rabies.

C. It is unlawful to fail or to refuse to destroy vicious animals or unvaccinated dogs or cats with symptoms of rabies as prescribed by regulation of the health and environment department [department of health] for the protection of public health and safety.

History: Laws 1901, ch. 105, § 3; Code 1915, § 220; C.S. 1929, § 4-2003; 1941 Comp., § 49-104; 1953 Comp., § 47-1-3; Laws 1959, ch. 176, § 7; 1973, ch. 170, § 7; 1977, ch. 253, § 56; 1979, ch. 194, § 3.

Bracketed material. — The bracketed was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.

Laws 1991, ch. 25, § 16 repealed former 9-7-4 NMSA 1978, relating to the health and environment department, and enacted a new 9-7-4 NMSA 1978, creating the department of health.

The 1979 amendment substituted "failure to destroy" for "procedure following death from rabies" in the catchline, designated the first sentence of the previously undesignated first paragraph as Subsection A and the second sentence of the previously undesignated first paragraph as Subsection B, substituted "vicious" for "vicous" following "known to be" and "or" for "and" following "to attack" in Subsection A, substituted "with any symptom" for "which has shown any symptom" in Subsection B, deleted "except that, if such animal has bitten a human being, it shall be confined for a ten-day period" from the end of Subsection B, deleted the last sentence of the previously undesignated first paragraph and the second undesignated paragraph, relating to the sending of the head of any animal suspected of having died of rabies to a laboratory, added Subsection C and made other minor changes.

The 1977 amendment substituted "health services division of the health and environment department" for "health and social services department" and "division" for "department" in the second paragraph.

Common law deemed test of liability for dog bite. — There is no statute in New Mexico making the owner of a dog an insurer against damages inflicted by it. The only statute on the subject is this section, making it unlawful to keep a dog known to be vicious. Thus, common law is the test of liability in an action for injuries to a minor child who was severely bitten by a dog while on the premises of the defendant. Perkins v. Drury, 1953-NMSC-029, 57 N.M. 269, 258 P.2d 379.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Personal injuries inflicted by animal as within homeowner's or personal liability policy, 96 A.L.R.3d 891.

Modern status of rule of absolute or strict liability for dogbite, 51 A.L.R.4th 446.

Who "harbors" or "keeps" dog under animal liability statute, 64 A.L.R.4th 963.

Liability of owner or operator of business premises for injury to patron by dog or cat, 67 A.L.R.4th 976.

Liability for injuries caused by cat, 68 A.L.R.4th 823.

Liability for injuries inflicted by dog on public officer or employee, 74 A.L.R.4th 1120.

Validity and construction of statute, ordinance, or regulation applying to specific dog breeds, such as "pit bulls" or "bull terriers," 80 A.L.R.4th 70.

Landlord's liability to third person for injury resulting from attack on leased premises by dangerous or vicious animal kept by tenant, 87 A.L.R.4th 1004.

Landlord's liability to third person for injury resulting from attack off leased premises by dangerous or vicious animal kept by tenant, 89 A.L.R.4th 374.

Liability for injury inflicted by horse, dog, or other domestic animal exhibited at show, 68 A.L.R.5th 599.