The Civil Code is relevant to us, and it is essential for everyone from birth to death. In the case of contracts, companies, property payments and matrimonial disputes, almost all civil activities are based in the Civil Code.
The introduction of the Civil Code has enabled many cases where there is no “conclusion” to find an accurate basis for adjudication; it has given a clear “statement” to many of the controversial “problems” of life.
There are many reasons for raising pet dogs today, such as seeing other dogs cute, well-behaved, and buying pet dogs in a rush, but dogs also require a lot of patience and energy, holding dogs together, handling dog shit, keeping dogs from others, etc. Some say they love dogs, and actually have little patience for dogs, which leads to many problems.
Since the beginning of this year, the Civil Code has been in force, with detailed provisions on the raising of dogs and the problems they cause. Under article 1251 of the Civil Code, animals are to be raised in accordance with the laws and regulations, with respect for public morals and without prejudice to the lives of others.
In accordance with articles 1245 and 1246 of the Civil Code, animal breeders cause harm to others or fail to take safety measures against animals in violation of regulatory provisions, the animal breeder or manager is liable for the violation, although they may not assume or mitigate responsibility if it can be shown that the damage was caused by wilful or gross negligence on the part of the offender, but they are still liable if the animal breeder or manager violates regulatory provisions, but may mitigate responsibility.
In addition, in accordance with article 1249 of the Civil Code, responsibility for the violation of the rights of abandoned or fleeing animals, who cause damage to others during abandonment or flight, rests with the original animal breeder or administrator.
So is it legal liability to kick a dog to death while he's on the road?
Some breeders treat pet dogs as their own spiritual support, are kicked to death, claim civil damages, and, worse still, pursue the deliberate destruction of private property. The pet dog is in fact the private property of the breeder and, according to the relevant provisions, the personal property of the citizen, including the legal income of the citizen, the house, the savings, the items of livelihood, the antiquities, the books, the wood, the livestock and other legal property, is permitted to the citizen.
Intentional destruction of property is defined as wilful destruction or damage to public or private property, in larger amounts or with other aggravating circumstances. In this case, however, the kicking of the dog was based on the bite of the dog, i.e. if no other person was guilty of gross negligence, he or she could be held responsible for abuse by the animal breeder or manager.
Furthermore, emergency avoidance is an act which, in order to protect the public interest, the personal and other rights of the person or of another person from an ongoing danger, must be taken to the detriment of the lawful interests of the lesser party in order to protect the greater legitimate interests.
Being bitten by a dog is not necessarily a minor matter, but is also likely to endanger life. Thus, when attacked by a dog, in order to protect his or her health, physical integrity, etc., he or she is kicked and killed in circumstances which violate the property rights and interests of the breeder, human rights prevail over property rights, in which case they are usually considered to be emergency avoidance, which does not constitute a crime, and the perpetrator is not criminally liable, is not liable and is not liable for compensation.
In fact, there are frequent conflicts between humans and dogs today, as well as the poisoning of pet dogs in some sub-regions, usually due to the fact that dogs are not held together when they walk, do not deal with dog dung, and that dogs bark at night, making the sub-district unsettling and the rest of the population intolerable and thus poisoning the sub-district.
However, such acts are likely to constitute the offence of placing dangerous substances. In essence, the contradiction between humans and dogs is at the top of the surface. Even trained dogs, trained by their breeders, cannot be equated to those who are fully capable of civil conduct, nor can they be compared to children of many years of age.
Many animal breeders are not only patient with their own pet dogs, they are even as tolerant as they are human beings, killing them as killing his relatives, and asking others to treat his dogs with the same kind of tolerance, often saying, “My dog is good,” “My dog doesn't bite,” etc., but even the dog owner can't stop it when it happens.
Others are not obliged to treat dog owners like dog owners, and there are people who are allergic to dog hairs or who are instinctively afraid of dogs, who may not be able to react calmly when they face threats from dogs, especially when they are bitten by dogs, and who cannot be kicked to death to protect themselves.
In addition to the above, the new version of the Civil Code, which contains a similar interpretation, specifies a number of matters of relevance to our daily lives, such as:
1. The dog who walks without a leash causes the dog to bite and the owner is responsible for the violation.
2. A clearly defined ban on dogs is applied to the injury, whether or not the injury is caused to the dog or not.
3. The owner of the stray dog, who is responsible for the violation, who cannot find the original owner, and the person who feeds for a long period of time will be regarded as the actual feeder and liable for the violation.
4. The medium must be returned if the minor is rewarded as the host or as the currency of the game.
5. A 30-day period of calm will be set for persons applying for a divorce by mutual agreement, which may not be divorced if they repent.
Property is advertised in elevators and the proceeds belong to all owners, and property is not subject to private appropriation.
7. High-altitude throwers bear responsibility for violations.
The new Civil Code, which had been enacted this year, had re-enacted the image of life, so that it could be said that it was based on life, which was more in line with what was known.
So in order not to step in life, we should learn the law better. How can we learn law without paying a lot of money to consult lawyers when things happen? This is your Civil Code.
There was no legal basis for ordinary people and there might be some confusion in the process of reading the Civil Code. I suggest you bring a copy of " A Book of Commons of Law " , which contains more than 2,000 typical cases, as well as a clear interpretation, which will make you clear that science is effective and universal.
At the same time, the Civil Code, known as the Encyclopedia of Social Life, has much to do with the way we live and eat, not only as part of the matrimonial family, but also as part of the codification of property rights, contracts, personality, inheritance, and tort liability, all of which have been modified in the Civil Code.
It is worth mentioning that the Civil Code is a large-word version that is suitable for all the young and old and brings you a better reading experience.
The case resolution link is complete, simple and clear, unlike some dry books of science law, where there are examples of pictures that are not too boring for younger children to read. It can be said that the Civil Code is one of the necessary books for every family.
In this modern society, we can do nothing, but do nothing “legally blind” and give up the opportunity to defend our rights when things happen.
The existence of this Civil Code is undoubtedly the best source of legal knowledge of life. It is a good choice to use it either in a “town house” or at work. We look at it so often that when it comes to a dispute, we have the truth and the law.