An appeal relating to dangerous dogs under Code § 3.2-6540(B) is civil in nature and, by operation of Code § 8.01-670, the Supreme court has appellate jurisdiction.
Here, the appellant owned the house and sent emails to neighbors regarding the dog’s attitude toward others. These communications could be viewed as an attempt to guard, protect, and/or maintain the dog. The appellant also referred to the animal as “my dog” after the attack and during her testimony. Based on this evidence, the circuit court’s determination that the appellant was the custodian or harborer of the dog was not plainly wrong.