Mr. Wang of Beijing raised a French bulldog. One day, Mr. Wang ' s father walked a dog in a walkway near the driveway at the exit of the district and, as he reached the gate at the exit, a pet dog entered the driveway, driving a woman out of the car and killing her. The parties failed to reach consensus on the issue of compensation and Mr. Wang appealed to the Court. According to information received from the People ' s Court of the Moyung District of Beijing, the court recently concluded the case of the owner of the dog who had been hit by a car and claimed moral damage to the comfort money.
It is understood that the contract submitted by Mr. Wang for the purchase of the dog states that the dog is a French bulldog at a price of $20,000, and that the dog ' s identity card is submitted to prove the dog ' s grade, gender, date of birth, etc. The owner sued the driver and the insurance company for the sum of $20,000 for the purchase of the dog, $5,000 for the cost of raising the dog and $5,000 for moral damages.
Ms. Zhang argued that she did not agree to compensation because the car was not fast at the time of the accident and the dog had not been tied at the time. The insurance company argued that the dog had suddenly appeared along the road and was in the driver ' s sight blind. The other dog was not registered and was not tied to the dog, and the owner was fully responsible.
After hearing, the court found that Mr. Wang had failed to register his dogs in accordance with the regulations governing dog rearing in the city of Beijing, that the incident had taken place at the point of exit from the district, that the traffic was high, and that he had left the dog chain when he left the house, and that Mr. Wang was primarily responsible for the accident. Ms. Zhang ' s complex sections of roads, such as entrances to and exits from the subdistricts, should be subject to a higher duty of care than normal travel, with reasonable avoidance of vehicles, pedestrians and pets. Ms. Zhang was not safely and carefully driving and was under secondary responsibility for the accident. Mr. Wang claimed $20,000 for the purchase of dogs and provided a contract for the purchase of dogs in a reasonable amount, which insurance companies should pay first within the risk range and not in sufficient part within the commercial three risk range.
The Court stated that Mr. Wang ' s claim for loss of rearing expenses was excessive and that it was at the discretion of the Court on the basis of the size of the dog, the length of the dog ' s time, and that, with regard to the moral damages which Mr. Wang claimed, the law provided for the right of the aggrieved person to claim moral damages in the event of serious moral damage caused by wilful or gross negligence to a particular person of personal significance. The fact that a pet dog has a personal interest is not general and needs to be determined on the basis of a combination of the person ' s statement, the time of raising, the degree of intimacy, etc. In that case, it was difficult to find that the dog had a personal interest on the basis of the available evidence, and that the dog, although having a companion function similar to that of a family, was still a property, did not support the moral damages claimed by Mr. Wang.
In the end, the court decided that the insurance company would pay Mr. Wang a total of $8,000 for property losses within the insurance limit. Neither party appealed.