When dogs wander onto neighboring land, situations can escalate quickly—especially in rural communities where livestock owners regularly contend with predators. Many people assume that if a dog is attacking their animals, they have broad authority to use lethal force. While Washington law does allow property owners to stop an active attack, a recent Court of Appeals decision shows that the window for doing so is far narrower than many may expect.

The 2026 case Bean v. Portenier provides important guidance on when a livestock owner may lawfully kill a dog and when doing so can lead to civil liability. The ruling serves as a reminder that timing, necessity, and reasonableness all play a critical role in determining whether a person’s actions are legally justified.

The Incident That Sparked the Case

The dispute began when two dogs escaped their owners’ property and entered a neighboring pasture containing sheep. The livestock owner later reported that the dogs were actively attacking the sheep, leading to several animals being killed or badly injured.

Instead of immediately using lethal force, the livestock owner—who happened to be a licensed veterinarian—restrained both dogs and administered sedatives. Roughly 45 minutes passed. When the dogs began experiencing medical distress from the drugs, he euthanized them using veterinary medications.

The dogs’ owners filed suit, asserting claims such as negligence, conversion (the wrongful exercise of control over another’s property), trespass to chattels, and professional malpractice. Although the trial court initially dismissed the case, the Court of Appeals reversed much of that ruling, allowing several claims to proceed.

Washington Law: The Narrow Right to Kill a Dog Attacking Livestock

Washington does provide a statutory defense for property owners faced with an immediate threat. RCW 16.08.020 allows a person to lawfully kill a dog that is seen “chasing, biting, injuring, or killing” livestock on their property.

While the statute seems straightforward, the appellate court emphasized a crucial limitation: the defense applies only when the threat is ongoing. In other words, the law grants permission to stop an attack—not to retaliate afterward.

Because the dogs in Bean had already been captured and restrained—and nearly an hour had passed—the court held that the statutory protection no longer applied. Once the danger ended, so did the legal justification for killing the animals.

The Common Law Right to Defend Property Has Limits Too

Even when a statutory defense does not apply, Washington’s common law recognizes a general right to defend property, including livestock. But this right is not unlimited. Lethal force must be “reasonably necessary” in the moment.

In Bean , the dogs were no longer a danger after they were subdued and sedated. Because the livestock were no longer under attack, killing the dogs could not be justified as a reasonable measure for protecting property. The court concluded that the livestock owner could not rely on common law defenses for this reason.

The Civil Liability That Can Follow

While people often view pets as family members, the law still treats them as personal property. That legal classification plays a major role in cases like this one.

Because neither the statutory nor common law defenses applied, the Court of Appeals allowed several claims to proceed, including:

• Negligence for failing to act with reasonable care
• Conversion for exercising unlawful control over the dogs
• Trespass to chattels for interfering with the owners’ property
• Bailment-related claims arising from taking possession of the animals

Once the dogs were under the property owner’s control, he effectively assumed legal duties for their welfare. The case highlights that even a well‑intentioned response can create liability if it exceeds what the law allows.

Veterinary Liability: A Key Complication

An unusual aspect of the case involved the defendant’s status as a licensed veterinarian. He argued that he acted purely as a property owner, not as a professional, and therefore could not be sued for malpractice.

The court disagreed. Even in the absence of a formal veterinarian‑client relationship, a professional negligence claim may proceed if a licensed professional uses their training, judgment, or access to controlled substances in a way that contributes to the harm at issue.

This ruling serves as an important caution for veterinarians and other licensed professionals: providing informal assistance—or using specialized tools or medications outside the scope of a formal relationship—can still trigger professional duties and potential liability.

What Didn’t Hold Up: Claims of Malicious Conduct

The Court of Appeals did affirm dismissal of one claim: malicious injury to an animal. Although the defendant’s choices were questionable and may have been negligent, there was no evidence that he acted out of malice or with the intent to cause harm.

This distinction matters. Negligence and poor decision‑making do not automatically amount to intentional wrongdoing under Washington law.

Key Lessons for Washington Property Owners

The decision in Bean v. Portenier underscores several important principles for anyone who owns livestock—or encounters a dog threatening their animals:

1. Immediate action matters. The statutory defense applies only during an ongoing attack or its immediate aftermath.
2. Use only necessary force. Once an animal is no longer a threat, lethal force can create serious liability.
3. Taking possession creates responsibility. Once a person controls someone else’s animal, they may be legally responsible for how it is handled.
4. Professionals must proceed carefully. Using specialized skills or controlled substances—even informally—can trigger professional‑standard duties.
5. When uncertain, involve authorities. Animal control or law enforcement can mitigate both risk and liability.

Final Thoughts

Bean v. Portenier illustrates how a fast‑moving, emotionally charged situation can quickly evolve into complex litigation. Washington law does recognize a property owner’s right to protect livestock, but it also sets clear limits on when that right applies and what actions are considered reasonable.

The primary takeaway is simple: what may feel justified in the moment may not be legally justified after the fact. Understanding your rights—and your boundaries—is essential.

If you are facing a situation involving potential liability, animal‑related disputes, or questions about your rights under Washington law, our firm is here to help evaluate your options and provide guidance tailored to your circumstances.