Two pet dogs bit 900 chickens in the neighbor's house, and the owner of the dog believed that there was a loophole in the victim's cockpit, facilitated the dog's entry, and demanded that his liability be “reduced” without court support. In recent days, the Intermediate People ' s Court of Nantung City, Jiangsu Province, has finally considered the animal damage liability dispute, upholding the first instance judgement and the owner of the dog Zhang Zhisheng Zhisheng Zheng, who compensated the victim, RMB 37928.8.
Three hours to find the dog owner.
Wang Zhisheng is a chicken farmer from the group of 15 groups in the town of Haian, Haian County. On the morning of 22 November 2014, Wang Zhisheng woke up and came to the chicken house behind the house to feed the chicken. Wang Zhisheng was surprised by the opening of the chicken house and saw a large area of dead chicken blood everywhere. Wang Zhisheng immediately withdrew from the chicken house and called 110.
When the police arrive, professionals are invited. Professionals caught one dog and the other escaped arrest. The police carried out the entire video, which contained a loophole at the far end of the chicken coop. After the incident, the parties differed as to whether the loopholes existed or whether the dogs were torn into and out of the chicken coop.
After more than three hours of visits to the surrounding population, the police found Zhang Yi (male), a 74-year-old group of villagers living next to the village. After the police produced the evidence, Zhang had to admit that the dog in question had been raised. According to Zhang, two dogs were raised by white Samoyers, one dog was scattered and one dog was chained; the other night, the dog was chained off; The dogs they raise have also had a precedent for drilling people's nests.
Deficiencies due to loopholes
When Zhang was notified of his arrival, the police conducted an inventory and overpounded. Wang Zhisheng's chickens were bit and killed nearly 900, and dead chickens weigh 2659.2 pounds. After the site was liquidated, the dog owner Zhang pulled the dead chicken away for disposal. Since then, Zhang has maintained that Wang Zhisheng was wrong and has requested a “reduced” for his liability, but Wang Zhisheng does not admit that the failure to negotiate the amount of compensation gave rise to litigation.
On 22 January 2015, the Court commissioned the Centre for Price Certification to determine direct economic loss of $37228.8. To that end, Wang Zhibheng spent $700 on identification.
During the hearing, the defendant Zhang repeatedly claimed that Wang Zhisheng ' s chicken coop itself had a loophole, and that it was that hole that allowed the dog to enter the coop. As manager, Wang Zhisheng was not able to close the loopholes in time and there was a causal link between the consequences of dogs entering the coop and therefore Wang Zhisheng was responsible.
The defendant will be paid in full.
After the Haian District Court, it was held that the principle of liability for damage caused by animals was no fault and that the fault of the animal breeder or manager was not taken into account. The defendant, Zhang Zhang Zhang, failed to manage the dog he raised, causing the dog to walk out of the chain to Wang Zhisheng's chicken nest, causing the chickens he raised to die in large numbers, and Zhang Zhang, the dog keeper, to be held responsible for the violations and to compensate Wang Zhisheng for the damage caused as a result. In the case of animal injury, the responsibility of the animal breeder or manager can be waived only if the victim is proved to have committed intentional or gross negligence. Zhang ' s own chicken den, known as Wang Zhisheng ' s, leads to the entry of the dog, but the available evidence makes it difficult to establish a causal link between the breach and the accident, and the reason why the loophole is controversial, and is not sufficient to prove that Wang Zhisheng was intentionally or grossly negligent in his management, so that Wang Zhisheng should not be held responsible in the present case, while Zhang ' s responsibility is not justified. The aforementioned judgement was rendered in accordance with article 78 of the Law of the People ' s Republic of China on Tort Liability.
After the first instance judgement, the defendant appealed against Zhang.
Upon hearing, the Court of First Instance found that the facts were clear and that the applicable law was correct and should be maintained. In accordance with article 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the People ' s Republic of China, the appeal was dismissed by final judgement and the sentence was upheld.
The judge's statement
The no-fault liability principle applies to animal breeding.
The presiding judge in the case stated that both the General Principles of Civil Law of the People ' s Republic of China and the Law of the People ' s Republic of China on Tort Liability had adopted the principle of non-culpability for animal injuries. In the constituent elements of responsibility, the fault of the defendant is not required, nor is the plaintiff required to prove and prove the fault of the defendant. If the defendant wants relief from liability, it must prove the plaintiff ' s wilful or gross negligence. Article 78 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Tort Liability provides that: “If an animal is raised to cause damage to another person, the animal breeder or manager shall bear responsibility for the violation, provided that it can be proved that the damage was caused by wilful or gross negligence on the part of the person to whom the violation was committed and that the liability may be waived or mitigated.”
The judge noted that it was generally considered that only extreme circumstances such as the fact that the victim had committed the theft of another animal or animal breeder, that the manager had warned of the presence of the animal in a particular site and the danger that it might occur, and that the abuser had taken appropriate precautions, were considered to have existed intentionally and that the offender was exempt from liability of the animal breeder or manager. Gross negligence is mainly a situation in which the person to whom the violation relates engages in acts such as flirting, beating, etc. against another person ' s animal, causing his or her own harm.
In this case, the defendant, Zhang Zhang, claimed that the plaintiff had made a mistake in his survival and thus “reduced” his liability. However, there was disagreement between the parties as to how the loophole was formed and there was no evidence of a pre-damage gap. Moreover, even if a loophole existed before, it could only be said to have created some ease for the smooth operation of the damage. Conditions are not equal to those for which the rise in conditions is often accompanied by additional factors, which in many cases are more important. Consequently, a causal link could not be established between the gap and the accident. At the same time, Wang Zhisheng did not commit acts of theft, provocation or assault against Zhang Zhisheng, nor did he carry out any specific acts that were deemed intentional or gross. In conclusion, the defendant, Zhang Zhang, whose claim that a loophole could not be elevated to extenuating circumstances, was not justified by his claim that he should be compensated for all the damage caused by the accident.