## Facts

- David and Cindy Propes owned two dogs; Mark and Sarah Griffith owned a farm with sheep and other livestock.
- After a prior sheep attack, Sarah Griffith watched her sheep overnight.
- The next morning, she saw two dogs in her sheep pasture; testimony indicated the dogs were not biting or barking at the sheep and the sheep were not visibly panicked.
- Sarah Griffith seized the dogs, called the sheriff, and stated she intended to have them euthanized; officers urged her to surrender the dogs, but she refused.
- A first veterinarian declined to euthanize the dogs after learning they belonged to the Propes.
- Sarah Griffith went to a second veterinarian, falsely claimed ownership in writing, and had both dogs euthanized.
- When contacted by Cindy Propes, Sarah Griffith did not disclose what she had done.
- The trial court awarded $2,000 actual damages against both Griffiths and $4,000 punitive damages against Sarah Griffith.

## Issues

1. Whether § 273.030, RSMo, privileged Sarah Griffith’s destruction of the Propes’ dogs as dogs discovered killing, wounding, or chasing sheep, or recently engaged in such conduct.
2. Whether the statute’s authorization to “immediately pursue and kill” was satisfied by capturing the dogs and later obtaining euthanasia through veterinarians.
3. Whether the evidence supported punitive damages for Sarah Griffith’s conduct.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment, including punitive damages.
- The court held § 273.030 did not apply because the evidence did not show the dogs were in the act of, or recently had been, killing, wounding, or chasing the sheep.
- The court further concluded the conduct was not an “immediate” protective response contemplated by the statute.
- The court upheld punitive damages based on Sarah Griffith’s refusal to relinquish the dogs to law enforcement, misrepresentation of ownership to secure euthanasia, and concealment from the owners.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory privilege to kill dogs threatening livestock applies only when statutory predicates are proven (e.g., the dog is discovered actively attacking/chasing livestock or circumstances show very recent engagement).
- Statutory language authorizing “immediate” pursuit and killing is directed to prompt defensive action, not delayed, deliberate destruction after the danger has passed.
- Punitive damages may be awarded where a defendant intentionally and wrongfully destroys another’s property interest in pets with malice or reckless indifference, including through deception and defiance of lawful alternatives.

## Conclusion

The court held the livestock-protection statute did not shield a neighbor who seized dogs and later had them euthanized through misrepresentation, and it affirmed punitive damages as a proper response to intentional, deceptive destruction of the owners’ dogs.


Propes v. Griffith, 25 S.W.3d 544 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2000)