Who should bear the liability for dog bites?
On 26 October, journalists learned from the Shanghai City Mandarin District People's Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Shanghai Monopoly Court”) that the court had recently heard a dispute over property damages arising from dog bites.
According to the Shanghai Pyramid Court, one night, Hao had taken his own teddy dog for a walk in the district, met with a golden hair dog who had not worn a condom while walking to the gate, suffered from emotional abnormalities caused by previous clashes between the dog and other dogs, and, after breaking out of the rope, bit a taddy dog who had towed it, who had paid a large amount of medical expenses for pets to treat the teddy dog ' s injuries, and who had sued the court for his legitimate rights and interests.
It was stated that the defendant, as the keeper and manager of the golden fur dog, was liable in full for the plaintiff ' s loss because he had left the dog without wearing the required condoms and without managing the dog ' s behaviour, resulting in the bite of the dog.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff ' s teddy dog was an unlicensed teddy dog and that the plaintiff ' s teddy dog had no towed rope on it at the time of the incident, and that there had been acts of provocation against the golden fur dog, and that the plaintiff should therefore also be held responsible for the results of its bite. In addition, the plaintiff's Teddy Dog had previously suffered from illness and the cost of treatment was too high, with the suspicion of “painting” the dog to obtain high compensation.
According to the People ' s Court of Penang District, the focus of the case was as follows:
First, should the defendant be liable? After examination, the defendant did not wear the required mouthpiece when he went out with one of the gold fur dogs and then bit the plaintiff, a towed Teddy dog. The defendant is liable as the keeper and manager of the golden fur dog.
Second, could the liability of the defendant be reduced? There is no causal link between the existence of a certified stocking of a teddy dog and the occurrence of the damage in the present case, which cannot serve as a basis for mitigating the liability of the defendant. In the present case, the individual causes of the body, the old injury, etc., were not the subject of a statutory mitigation of the defendant ' s liability as a tortist and liable person. The case was a special tort dispute and the principle of responsibility without fault should be applied in accordance with the law. As to the defendant's allegation that the plaintiff had been able to obtain a high amount of compensation by using a teddy dog to “punches”, the court found it difficult to believe that it had failed to provide sufficient evidence.
In conclusion, the court found that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff ' s loss in full.