A dog without dog rope.
It caused a car accident.
The owner of the dog is claiming over $1.57 million.
23 September
Beijing House Mountain People ' s Court Long Gap Court
The case was heard.
On 26 June 2020, a man on a motorcycle met a dog without a dog rope and died after an accident. The driver ' s family, believing that the owner of the dog had failed to meet the corresponding management obligations and was liable for the accident, sued him to the court for over 1.57 million yuan.
The scratches and bites of pedestrians, the crashes of elderly children, traffic accidents and the bites of other dogs have been repeated in recent years as a result of accidents and disputes over the absence of dog ropes.
In interviews with journalists, judges pointed out that pet owners carrying pets to outdoors should take measures such as canine ropes in accordance with the law to prevent dogs from hurting people, with particular attention to groups such as the elderly and the infirm. Under the relevant legal provisions, such as the Civil Code, the Animal Disease Act, the owner of a pet is liable for damage caused by another person, and it is difficult to obtain compensation for damage caused to the dog by the absence of a dog rope.
Walking a dog without a tie to a dog bite.
The breeder has no responsibility.
Li was walking his own teddy dog in the garden in the same district and Ho was walking the Haschi that he raised. Hadzie suddenly bit Teddy, and Lee went up there and tried to take Teddy away, and he was not careful to get his arm bit by Haskid, and both sides called the police.
Upon arrival, the civilian police found out that Ho Ho had no dog certificates, contacted the dog squad to keep Haski and took Lee and Ho to the police station for questioning. On the same day, Li went to the hospital for medical expenses of $132.149, including vaccination against rabies and protein, and took Teddy to the Petty Hospital, where Teddy was diagnosed as having broken spines, at a total cost of $15906. Whether Haski was too vicious or Teddy was the one who started the trouble, and there was a dispute between the two sides that Li would bring the case to court. After the court has heard, it is decided whichever bears full liability.
The Assistant Judge of the People ' s Court of the Western City of Beijing said that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the regulations governing dogs in the city of Beijing, etc., animal breeders or managers should adopt safety measures for animals, when carrying dogs out of the house, they should be tied to dogs and should avoid the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women and children. The plaintiff, Li, carried a teddy dog out of the country, and the defendant was not bound by a canine rope. In addition, Haschi is a medium-sized dog with a high duty of care. Thus, the court decided which was to assume full liability.
The old man was frightened by pet dogs.
The amount of compensation is subject to causation
While Mrs. Liu was waiting for the elevator, the neighbour's porcelain dog suddenly came out of nowhere. The diagnosis was two fractures, which required one month of rest. Over the next six months, Mrs. Liu was treated in a hospital oncology, diagnosed a number of diseases and passed away.
The daughter then brought the neighbour before the court, asking her to bear the cost of medicine, funeral expenses, death compensation, moral relief, etc. totalling over $600,000. On application, the court entrusted an assessment of the cause of death in the old age to an expert body, which, after examination, found that there were no reports of the body, that the cause of death was unclear and that the assessment was inadmissible. In the first instance, the neighbour was awarded $50,000 in compensation for the fracture and death of the old lady, whose daughter appealed to the Shanghai City Intermediate People ' s Court. Ultimately, the Shanghai Intermediate People ' s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the sentence.
Sun Cathy, Assistant to the First Intermediate People ' s Court in Shanghai, said that neighbours were responsible for violations of their rights when they fell and suffered injuries as a result of the lack of effective control over the Bomy dogs they raised. The medical death certificate for the elderly states that the main causes of death are respiratory failure; the cause of death is lung infection; and other important circumstances that promote death, but not related to the disease or condition that led to the death, are “shambone fractures on the left side, fractures on the left side, left emulsions, malignant neoplasms on the right lung, hypertension level 3, coronary porridge samples hardened heart disease, urine tract infections”. In combination with the medical death certificates and medical records of the inhabitants, the death of the elderly is due to many causes, and the daughter of the elderly cannot prove a direct causal link between the fall and the eventual death. On the basis of the facts of the case and the percentage of participation, the court of first instance determined, in accordance with the principle of fairness, that the neighbour had not been improperly compensated in the total amount of $50,000 for the broken bones and deaths of the Tai. Accordingly, the Shanghai Central Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence.
There was a car accident with a pet dog.
The owner has no right to compensation.
On a November 2020 day, on a road in the western city of Beijing, Ms. He's pet dog ran across the road, Mr. Zhang drove by a car and died after being run over by the right rear wheel of the vehicle. Ms. He and Mr. Zhang failed to reach an agreement on the settlement of compensation and then filed an action.
Ms. He believed that Mr. Zhang should be able to see and avoid pet dogs, and that Mr. Zhang had not stopped in time after collisions with the dogs and had driven away, resulting in their death. Mr. Zhang ' s fault in the traffic accident should therefore be compensated. With regard to the amount of compensation, Ms. He found her pet dog to be a well-known breed and had suffered a great deal of psychological damage as a pet dog owner after the accident, claiming that Mr. Zhang had paid a total of $12,000 for his financial loss and moral damage. Mr. Zhang, on the other hand, argued that no pet dog had been seen at the time and that the wheel had not been seen. The location of the incident was either a pedestrian crossing or a junction. Being a normal traveler should not be held accountable. In the end, the court rejected Ms. He's application at first instance. Ms. Ha then appealed against the first instance judgement, which dismissed the appeal and upheld it.
Justice Lintao of the People ' s Court of the Western City of Beijing said that Ms. He was responsible for the accident by walking her dog outside the house without a towed rope and allowing the dog to enter the motor lane, where the traffic was greater. The site of the collision did not belong to the sidewalk area and the driver had no legal obligation to slow down and observe pedestrians. By looking at the surveillance video, it can be seen that the dog in question is of a small size, that he enters the motor lane faster, that when he runs out of the green belt, he crashes directly to the right back of the vehicle, leaving the driver with a limited amount of time and angle to predict, and that Mr. Zhang should not be found guilty of an offence. With regard to Ms. Ha ' s alleged driver ' s escape, the Court considered that Mr. Zhang ' s failure to realize that the crash was live and to stop immediately to inspect was not unreasonable, given the similar magnitude of the events, such as the rollover of the wheel to a well cover, and the presence of vehicles in the rear. Accordingly, the Court rejected Ms. He ' s application at first instance.