In recent years, more and more families keep pets. Due to the characteristics of pet dogs, it is necessary to go out for a walk, which leads to more and more disputes over compensation for animal tort damage. What kind of responsibilities do pet owners have to bear for pet injuries in different situations? How to deal with some special situations of "pets don’t hurt people, but people are hurt by pets"? Below, we will analyze and interpret these related legal issues.
1. There are many situations in which pets hurt people, for example, they are not leashed, and pet dogs are prohibited. What responsibilities should pet owners bear respectively?
Case 1:
On the afternoon of September 12th, grandma took her grandson to play in the artificial lake in Gardening Mountain, Mianyang, Sichuan. Suddenly, a dog broke free from the leash and rushed over 10 meters away. Before grandma could pick up her grandson, the dog threw the child to the ground and began to bite. The woman holding the dog rushed to deal with it at the first time, but the dog never let go until the child’s grandfather arrived and pried the dog’s mouth open with a steel pipe.
According to family members, the biting dog is a Rottweiler, which belongs to a fierce dog. The woman holding the dog belongs to a pet shop, and the dog owner then rushed to the hospital, expressing his full cooperation with the treatment. At present, the police are investigating and handling it.
Media reporters found that in May, 2022, there were 29 kinds (categories) of prohibited dog directories in Mianyang Key Management Areas (Draft for Comment), and Rottweilers were among them.
On June 15, 2022, the Regulations on Dog Breeding Management in Mianyang City passed the examination and approval of the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 13th Provincial People’s Congress, and will be officially implemented on December 1, 2022.
Lawyer’s law popularization:
The principle of no-fault liability is generally applied in the Civil Code in cases where pets injure human beings. If it can be proved that the damage was caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the infringed, the liability may not be assumed or mitigated.
At this time, how to determine the responsibility should be considered from the subjective fault of the breeder and whether the dogs are in compliance with local mandatory regulations. Articles 1246 and 1247 of the Civil Code have made different provisions on animal wounding and dangerous animal wounding, respectively. For the definition of dangerous animals, Article 1247 only stipulates "dogs that are forbidden to be kept", and it is still necessary to determine which dogs are prohibited to be kept through specific local management regulations.
The Rottweiler involved in this case belongs to the local dog-keeping ban, but this provision has not been implemented at the time of the case, so it cannot be applied to determine the tort liability, but this does not mean that the breeder can escape the tort liability. In Article 1246 of the Civil Code, the breeder is required to take safety measures for raising animals. The safety measures required here should be considered in combination with the size of the dog, the possibility of injury and other aspects.
In this case, it can be seen that compared with small dogs, large dogs are more difficult to control when injuries occur, and simple leashes are not enough to avoid the possibility of injuries, so breeders should have higher duty of care. Simple leashes can no longer prevent dogs from hurting people, and more comprehensive ways should be adopted, such as putting a condom on the dog’s mouth. Therefore, in this case, the leashing behavior of breeders cannot be considered as that they have taken safety measures and should bear tort liability.
Case 2:
At 19 o’clock on September 15, Wang was walking on the road and was hit by a big dog that suddenly jumped out. Immediately, Wang was sent to the hospital for treatment. The diagnosis was a fracture of the sacrum and multiple injuries.
At the time of the incident, the local police station received 110 instructions and arrived at the scene to find out that the big dog was raised by He, and at the time of the incident, He’s dog was not on the leash. Wang sued He and demanded compensation for medical expenses, lost time and nutrition expenses totaling more than 30,000 yuan.
The court held that Wang was injured by a pet dog raised by He, and He, as the keeper and manager of the pet dog, should bear tort liability according to law.
After investigation, He has paid more than 10,000 yuan for the medical expenses advocated by Wang, and has no objection to the transportation expenses, follow-up treatment fees and spiritual comfort funds advocated by Wang. As determined by the court, He should compensate Wang for all losses including lost time and nutrition expenses totaling 16,940 yuan.
Lawyer’s law popularization:
Article 1246 of the Civil Code stipulates that if no safety measures are taken to raise animals and cause damage to others, only when there is evidence that the damage was intentionally caused by the infringer can the infringer’s responsibility be reduced.
In this case, Wang did not have any intention or negligence, and He did not take safety measures such as leashing the dog, which is actually very dangerous. This situation is completely in line with the situation that Article 1246 of the Civil Code did not take safety measures. He should bear tort liability for all the losses caused by Wang.
2. If the owner has fulfilled his obligations such as tying the rope and closing the door and window, but there is still an accidental injury, how should he be held accountable?
Case 1:
Recently, a video of an old man who died after tripping over a dog rope was circulated on the Internet.
It is reported that one night, Luo Mou, a girl from Luoshui Village, Shunde, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, took another villager’s dog out to play. When passing through Luoshui Market, the dog broke free from the restraint rope and accidentally tripped over the 88-year-old villager Mai, causing Mai to be injured and died after being sent to the hospital for rescue. According to the local town government, this incident was initially judged to be an accident.
Lawyer’s law popularization:
For pet injury cases, the fundamental thing is to judge whether the breeder has fulfilled his management obligations. In this case, the injury case caused by the girl taking out the dog kept by others actually belongs to the tort caused by the fault of the third person. At this time, the breeder has fulfilled the management obligation, and the reason for the injury of the infringed person is that the girl took the pet without consent, not that the breeder subjectively failed to fulfill the management obligation. At this time, the infringed person can claim from the third person or the breeder when pursuing the responsibility. If he claims from the breeder, the breeder can still claim compensation from the third person.
In terms of ultimate responsibility, although the girl who caused the damage is a person with limited capacity for civil conduct in civil affairs, her guardian should also be liable for compensation.
Case 2:
An old man walked his dog by the roadside in the morning, but unfortunately he was hit by a cat falling from upstairs and fell into a coma. According to reports, at present, the elderly are discharged from the hospital after more than 20 days of treatment, and their families and cat owners are negotiating compensation.
Lawyer analysis:
In this case, when the cat falls from the upstairs, we need to look specifically at the cause of the cat’s fall. If there is no man-made parabolic reason, only the cat escapes or accidentally falls, and the keeper has taken safety measures such as sealing the window, then the general principle of the Civil Code for the infringement of keeping animals, that is, the principle of no fault, can be applied. If the infringed person has no intention or gross negligence, the keeper still needs to bear certain tort liability.
3. How to deal with "the pet didn’t hurt people, but people were injured by pets"?
Case 1:
Recently, when riding a battery car through a section near Chen Mou’s home, Zhang was bitten by a dog from Chen Mou, which led to Zhang’s fall and hospitalization. Zhang then filed a lawsuit in court.
The court held that because the animals themselves are dangerous, they may cause others to be frightened and have psychological fear and thus induce damage. Therefore, as long as the animals raised cause damage to others, they can constitute the responsibility of keeping animals for damage, and it is not necessarily a prerequisite for keeping animals to bite or scratch others. Defendant Chen Mou, as an animal breeder, chased and bit Zhang by his dog, causing him to fall and get injured. In the case that the defendant had no evidence to prove that Zhang had intentional or gross negligence, the court refused to accept the defendant’s defense opinion, and the defendant Chen Mou assumed all the compensation responsibilities for the plaintiff.
Lawyer’s law popularization:
In the Civil Code, the principle of tort liability for damage caused by raising animals is no-fault liability. Compared with general tort, this principle has stricter management obligations for infringers. When this principle is applied, it is not mainly based on the fault of the actor, but on the objective existence of the damage result, and the tort liability is determined according to the causal relationship between the danger of the things managed by the actor and the damage result.
Because there is a certain danger in raising animals, even if the pet doesn’t hurt people, if there is a causal relationship between the damage result of others and the pet, then the breeder needs to bear the tort liability. However, although this provision is to better safeguard the rights and interests of the infringed, it still considers the fault of the infringed. In the case of intentional or gross negligence of the infringed, the breeder can reduce or even exempt the liability.
Case 2:
A few days ago, the topic of "a man kicking a dog in Chongqing caused the old man to fall" attracted attention. The video shows that an old man tried to separate the big dog from the puppy in a fight, when the owner of the puppy rushed to kick the big dog, causing the old man holding the big dog to fall to the ground.
In this incident, the reason why the puppy struggled with the big dog was that the dog owner let the puppy run around without a leash. In the end, the man involved promised to apologize and provide necessary compensation.
Lawyer’s law popularization:
The leash for raising animals has been expressly stipulated in various places now, and it has already belonged to the situation stipulated in Article 1246 of the Civil Code without leash. At this time, although the old man’s fall was not directly caused by the dog’s injury, it still had a causal relationship with the dog’s failure to leash, so the man involved should still be liable for compensation. At this time, if there are specific local management rules and regulations on pet leash, the man involved may be subject to administrative punishment.
Text/An Xiaoxue (lawyer of Beijing Jingpeng Law Firm)