In recent days, Judge Yang Jintui of the Uang Court of the City of Sian has been hearing a dispute over animal-raising damage.
In the early morning of April 2021, the accused Hu Ho Ho Hoi walked his family's golden fur dog on an unknown road outside the district, leaving the dog free to rejoice because of the scarcity of roadwalkers. At that point, when one of the plaintiffs, who had been riding a bicycle in the late sevens, saw the defendant on the side with him and the dog had not been tied, he moved earlier to the side of the road, but to the meeting point, the defendant ' s golden fur dog ran towards the complainant ' s bicycle, causing him to fall and fractures. On that date, the complainant ' s family called the police and the traffic police issued a road traffic accident certificate stating that the facts of the accident existed, but that the cause of the accident could not be determined without the original on-site evidence. The dispute over compensation for damages such as medical expenses was brought to the court.
During the trial, the defendant applied for an assessment of the causal link between the underlying disease of the plaintiff ' s osteoporosis and the accident, the degree of participation and the individual medical expenses, but the opinion of the expert body was that it was impossible to distinguish between the specific costs and to reach a valid conclusion.
The court considered that the case was one of damage caused by animal breeding, not a traffic accident liability dispute, in which the defendant had not walked on the right side of the temporary road and had not effectively managed and restrained the dog, resulting in a sudden collision between the dog and the applicant ' s bicycle, and was liable for the violation as the dog ' s keeper and manager. Despite the downside, the slope was small, the plaintiff was riding on the right side, without stepping, e.g. an accelerator, and when the dog was seen, he avoided the other side of the road in a timely manner, having fulfilled his duty of care, so that he was not guilty in the accident. Although the applicant ' s own underlying illness had an impact on the occurrence of the damage, the individual ' s state of health was not a statutory cause of fault. Ultimately, the defendant was legally awarded damages to the plaintiff for damages totalling over $140,000. The accused pleaded not guilty to the appeal and the Sian court upheld the sentence.
The judge reminds me that a civilized dog is a leash. The carrying dog shall only leave the house, in accordance with the rules, wearing a dog tag, a dog rope, a mouthpiece, and shall not go to a densely populated public place in order to prevent the dog from hurting and spreading the disease. At the same time, in the event of an attack by an animal, the police are called in in a timely manner to identify the breeder or manager, to fix and preserve the relevant evidence and to defend their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law.
According to the law firm Dae-seong (Sian) in Beijing, lawyer Han Hsuzawa, the principle of no-fault liability applies to animal-rearing causing human damage, according to article 1245 of the Civil Code: “An animal-breeding person or manager who causes damage to another person shall bear responsibility for the violation; however, it can be shown that the damage was caused by the victim's wilful or gross negligence, and that responsibility may be waived or mitigated.” Article 1246 provides: “In case of violation of regulatory provisions and failure to take safety measures against animals causing harm to others, the animal breeder or manager shall be liable for the infringement; however, the liability may be mitigated if it can be proved that the damage was caused intentionally by the victim.” The principle of liability without fault applies in case of damage caused by the animal.
In addition, in accordance with article 27 of the Xian City canine limitation regulations, canine-bearers and canine-keeping units shall, in accordance with the law, be civilized, subject to the following provisions: (ii) When a dog leaves the household with a dog, the dog shall bear only a canine tag and be held by a person with full civilian capacity using a tow band, which shall not exceed two metres and shall be consciously tightened when the pedestrian is crowded ... Article 28 prohibits the carrying of dogs only in the following areas: (v) city squares, parks, main urban traffic routes, walking blocks ... Therefore, a canine man should take safety measures against animals and assume responsibility for animal control and management.
As can be seen from the above-mentioned legal provisions, the defendant, as the owner and manager of the animal breeder, is legally and reasonably liable for the damage suffered by the defendant, since he has not been tied to his family ' s golden fur dog on an unknown road outside the district, has not taken sufficient security measures against the dog, and has violated the legal provisions, which have resulted in cases of assault.