In recent days, Mr. Shenzhen complained that on 26 May, while bathing in the pet living house of the “sex dog”, his favorite dog had left the shop unsealed and was eventually run over by a car in the parking lot of the Transpart building. Mr. Zhao offered $50,000 in compensation, claiming 70 per cent responsibility for the pet shop and 30 per cent responsibility for the car owner, but the pet shop only wished to pay 2000-3,000 dollars, which was unsuccessful in many negotiations between the parties.
Following a complaint from Mr. Zhao, a press call was made to the pet shop, where the staff member stated that he was willing to make a “reasonable range” of compensation based on the commercial value of the pet and was committed to improving management measures. At present, the parties have not agreed on the amount of compensation, and Mr. Zhao has indicated that he will proceed with civil proceedings against the owners of the pet shop and the car involved.
The dog ran out of the pet store and was killed. The owner claimed $50,000.
Mr. Zhao introduced that on the morning of 26 May, the family took the dog “fireball” to the pet living room of the “any dog”. They were regular guests of the store, and when they gave the fireball to the clerk, they left without fear. At around 11 p.m. on the same day, Mr. Zhao's family received a telephone call from the pet shop, where the shopkeeper stated that “the dog was lost in the cross-border building”.
After nearly an hour of searching, Mr. Zhao's family found a “fireball” lying in the blood. Mr. Zhao recalled that he was still at the end and immediately drove back when he heard about the fireball incident.
After that, Mr. Zhao, in consultation with the shopkeeper, called the local street surveillance and returned to the scene. At about 11.10 p.m. on the same day, as the pet shop did not close the bathroom and the shop door, the showered fireball ran out of the pet shop, and the shopkeeper immediately went after the dog and went to the cross-post building about 800 metres from the pet shop, where the dog disappeared.
Surveillance video shows pet dogs lying around the corner of the garage and finally being run over. Interviewee for map
Surveillance shows that during the search for dog fireballs, the dog appeared in the underground parking lot of the crossing building and was run over and killed by a grey sedan who did not get out of the car and left. According to the surveillance, “the pet shop is still the primary responsibility, but if the owner stops for the first time and calls the police, the “fireball” may not be fatal”.
On the evening of 26 May, the traffic police found the owner of the vehicle, Mr. Zhao, the pet shop and the owner of the vehicle, who had conducted tripartite mediation at the traffic police office, but no agreement was reached. According to an accident certificate issued by the Dragon Brigade of the Transport Police of the Public Security Bureau of Shenzhen City, the “fireball” was lying on the road at the turn of the road, in the blind zone of the vehicle and could not be observed in time.
A certificate of liability for the accident issued by the traffic police.
At the time of the consultations, Mr. Zhao sought joint compensation of $50,000 from the responsible party, with the consent of the owner, but the pet shop did not agree to the scheme, stating that it would be willing to pay up to $5,000.
Moreover, Mr. Zhao stated that his claim for $50,000 was well founded, that he had spent a lot of effort on the dog, that last year the “fireball” had diabetes and then had cataract blindness, that he had spent $45,000 on treatment, and that he had spent around $10,000 on insulin every day for almost a year, and that dog food and medicine. Now that the fireball has been accidentally hit by a pet shop, both parties should have made good on the losses.
On 28 May, Mr. Zhao decided to deal with the matter as soon as possible after having stabilized his feelings, and again approached the pet shop, proposing a solution of $7,000, “but this time the pet shop changed its speech and said that it was willing to pay only $2,000 to $3,000”.
The pet shop claims to be willing to pay for its business value, counsel: medical expenses or difficult claims
Upon receiving a complaint from Mr. Zhao, the press called the “Doggy Doggy Doggy” Petty House, claiming that Mr. Zhao's claim for $50,000 on the day of the incident was unreasonable and that “we would be willing to pay half of the costs of the funeral, including the funeral of the pets, within reasonable limits”.
According to the store, “the average dog is only about $2,000-$3,000, not to mention he's still a dog”.
In response, counsel for Wu Fenghu, a Beijing Beijing Division (Shanghai) law firm, stated that the pet living house formed a service contract with Mr. Zhao, the owner of the pet, during which he received the pet for bathing and was obliged to keep it safe and return it safely. As the shopkeeper ' s negligent failure to close the door led to the release of the pet and eventually to his death by a vehicle, the negligent behaviour of the pet living house directly resulted in the death of the pet, breaching contractual obligations and entailing primary liability.
In the course of driving, the owner of the car who crushed the dog to death has a duty of care in the surrounding environment and is liable if he fails to exercise reasonable duty of care, such as slowness in the parking lot, failure to observe the surroundings, etc., leading to the death of the pet by crushing, etc.
In judicial practice, compensation for pets is generally determined on the basis of factors such as the purchase cost of the pets, their variety, market value, actual age of the pets and their state of health. At the same time, the death of a pet would entail mental suffering for the pet owner, and the court might support a certain amount of moral damages.
In the case of Mr. Zhao, the costs of the previous treatment of a pet, which would normally have been recognized as the cost of raising the pet owner, are the normal expenses that the pet owner should bear, and it is more difficult to obtain court support in judicial practice unless there is a direct causal link between these costs and the negligence of the pet shop.