Since 1 May this year, the city has punished more than 300 cases of dog-free conduct; 14 days of dog-free conduct has been punished; and over 20 incidents of dog-free behaviour have been successfully detected and punished in several sub-districts of Shanghai by piloting a system to capture uncivilized dog behaviour. Today, more than half a year after the law was in force, dog-to-dogism is still prohibited, dog-to-dog attacks are repeated, some dog-to-dogs are even indifferent to the law, and the issue of urban dogs and “dog-to-dog-to-dog” has aroused debate. The current case deal with the harm of walking dogs, legal liability, self-protection in the face of personal property, and evidence defence.
Counsel.
Moderator: What are the provisions of the newly amended Animal Vaccination Act and the relevant local statutes of our province, and what are the legal responsibilities of the breeders with regard to the offences of walking dogs free of strings?
E: With the growing number of residents of urban dogs, some uncivilized dog-keeping practices have caused problems to people's normal productive lives, and the phenomenon of “dog-walking” has been widespread, leading to frequent incidents of pet dogs and harassment. With a view to further strengthening dog management to prevent dogs from hurting people and spreading the disease, article 30 of the new Animal Vaccination Act, which was amended at the 25th meeting of the 13th NPCSC, clearly states that, when carrying dogs, they should wear dog plates and take measures such as canine ropes to prevent the spread of the disease.
In addition to the requirement to walk a dog to hold a leash, the Animal Disease Prevention Act also makes it clear that units and individual dogs should be regularly immunized against rabies in accordance with the rules, and apply to the local dog registry office for registration on the basis of an immunization certificate issued by the animal clinic. In cases where dogs are not regularly immunized against rabies as required, the competent agricultural and rural authorities of the local people ' s governments at the district level and above shall order the correction for a period of time and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
Indeed, many cities had introduced local regulations many years earlier to regulate uncivilized dog-keeping behaviour.
The canine regulations of the city of Lanzhou, which were in force since 1 January 2017, regulate the conduct of dogs. Article 30 of the regulations specifies that, when a dog leaves, the following provisions shall be observed in the strict management area: a minor may not carry a dog alone; a dog should be held by a canine rope, and a dog should be of a length of less than 1 5 metres; a dog should be of a length of less than 1 metre and should wear only a beak for the dog; measures such as carrying a dog or collecting a dog rope, carrying a dog close to the body, wearing a mouthcap for a dog should be taken to prevent the wounding of a person; care should be taken to avoid allowing pedestrians, in particular the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women and children; and the dog should be effectively prevented from attacking a person only through continuous barking and bite.
The Lanzhou canine regulations also clearly define the legal responsibility for walking dogs, and are subject to corrective action by the public security organs; if they refuse to do so, they are fined up to $200.
Moderator: With the number of cases of violation brought by dogs that only hurt people increasing every year, please ask what are the provisions of our Civil Code and related judicial interpretations that provide for responsibility for the resulting violations?
(b) Nguyen Quen: In addition to the corresponding penalties, the dog walk is liable for the violation of rights in the event of an injury.
In accordance with articles 1234, 1246, 1247, 1249, 1250 and 1251 of the Civil Code, animal breeders who cause harm to others, who do not take safety measures to harm others, who prohibit dangerous animals such as dogs, abandoned or escaped animals who cause harm to others during abandonment or flight, and who, by the fault of a third person, cause harm to others, the animal breeder or administrator, or original animal breeder or manager shall be held responsible for the violation.
Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings provides in this regard: “Tort action for damage to human beings caused by animal breeding shall be brought by the animal breeder or administrator in respect of the fault of the victim or of a third person.” This also means that the breeder or administrator may not assume or mitigate responsibility unless it can be shown that the damage was caused by wilful or gross negligence on the part of the infringer.
Moderator: Please provide a brief analysis of why injuries caused by walking dogs without strings continue to occur at a time when legislation is getting better.
It is not difficult to see from the above-mentioned introduction that the dog-training legislation has been implemented throughout the country from the previous local legislation, but there are still some who do not care about it, which has led to the constant occurrence of vicious acts by dogs for two main reasons:
The lack of an adequate response has led to continued violations. For example, in the case of illegal dogs, the authorities do not punish the breeder or the manager after receiving a complaint or calling the police, nor do they detain the dogs and check whether they have rabies, but simply leave them to remain in custody after oral education.
There is not enough advocacy, and civilized dogs have not yet reached the heart. The persistence of a “dog-keeping” mentality has led to a low level of awareness of the laws and regulations by dogs alone or by managers, even using ignorance of the law as an excuse for their violations, thus ignoring the existence of the law and flouting its authority. It is also a reminder to the large number of dog breeders that they must be civilized in their daily lives in accordance with the law and must not challenge the legal bottom line with ignorance and fear.
Moderator: How do you defend the right to evidence when there is an increase in the number of cases where dogs only hurt people every year?
First of all, when a dog is walking, it is generally reported to the property company, the village council, the neighbourhood council, the city authorities, or to the public security authorities, indicating the time, place and place of the offence, the person against whom the offence was committed, and the person against whom the offence was committed, and in particular to the extent possible, so that law enforcement officials can follow up on the penalty.
Secondly, only dogs are injured and, in order to claim a claim, the following evidence should be done: Call the police and keep a report of the incident; search witnesses for confirmation of the incident, while leaving contact details for the witnesses; if the breeder is in the vicinity, he or she may be required to accompany him or her to a doctor to confirm his or her identity, address, etc., basic information; take timely photographs of the dog and his or her wounds with a mobile phone; and keep well-documented medical records and fee documentation to facilitate future claims.
Thirdly, in preventing dogs from biting only and taking evidence, care must be taken to protect themselves, to defend their rights in a rational manner and not to have a positive conflict with their breeders, so that other, more serious incidents of victimization do not occur.