As a result of Mr. Wei's injury to a stray dog and his ineffectual death as a result of rabies symptoms, Mr. Wei's family sued Mr. Chen, the villager who “adopted” the stray dog, for over $320,000 in economic losses such as medical expenses, death compensation, etc.
It has to start in May this year. At around 5 p.m. on 26 June, Mr. Wei, a villager from the Fish Peak District, went to a village village for dinner and was bitten by a stray dog “adopted” by Mr. Chen as he was passing a distance of 100 metres from his home.
On the same day, Mr. Wei ' s family took him to the local health centre for treatment and went to the city ' s CDC and hospital for rabies and tetanus injections.
However, on 8 June this year, Mr. Wei began to experience rabies during his rest at home. Although the family promptly brought him to hospital for treatment, Mr. Wei ended up dying in vain.
Four days later, in order to determine the cause of Mr. Wei ' s death, his family spent 15,000 yuan to commission an assessment to a forensic institute. The results showed that Mr. Wei died as a result of central nervous failure due to rabies virus encephalitis.
Subsequently, under the auspices of the local village council, Mr. Wei ' s family and Mr. Chen mediated on the issue of compensation. At that time, according to Mr. Chen, the stray dog was not fed by his own family and had agreed to pay $50,000 for humanitarian reasons and related ties.
The mediation was unsuccessful because of the differences between the parties. In response, Mr. Wei ' s family brought Mr. Chen ' s case to court in July of this year, claiming over $3235,000.
On 28 August this year, the Fish Peak District Court opened the trial. In court, the plaintiff ' s side stated that the deceased, Mr. Wei, had been in good health, had no illness and had suddenly died of rabies, causing great mental suffering to the plaintiff, who was liable for tort under the Tort Liability Act.
In response, the defendant argued that Mr. Chen was not an appropriate defendant in the present case and that there had been no violation of his rights in the present case, and that Mr. Wei ' s death was a virus infection resulting from a stray dog attack, for which only the original owner of the stray dog was liable. The accused had never fed or taken in stray dogs and should not be held responsible.
It is understood that this stray dog came to Mr. Chen ' s house in April this year, after he had raised two dogs himself. When Mr. Chen fed the dog, the stray dog came to eat, and for a long time the dog became a habit of eating and could not leave. Some villagers proposed to kill the stray dog for food, but Mr. Chen refused. As a result, stray dogs were left behind and continued to eat at Mr. Chen ' s house.
After hearing, the Court found that the defendant, Mr. Chen, was merely a feeder of stray dogs, was not an animal breeder or manager under the Tort Liability Act, and that his feeding was not exclusively for stray dogs, but rather for stray dogs. Therefore, the guilt of the accused was minimal in the event.
In view of the fact that the accused in this case was a relative of the village and that both sides were distant, mediation was conducive to harmonious coexistence. The presiding judge recommended that the parties coordinate within 20 per cent of the scope of the application.
In the end, the two parties reached an agreement that the defendant would compensate the plaintiff for a lump sum of $65,000 in economic losses. On the morning of 12 September, Mr. Chen handed over $65,000 to the plaintiff.