The dog, without the rope, ran into the motorway, contacted the normal vehicle and died. The grieving owner of the dog, Ms. Ha, filed an action on the grounds of the driver ' s fault, claiming a total of $12,000 for economic loss and moral damages. At first instance, the West City Court found that Ms. He had not taken the rope and allowed the dog to enter the motorway, and that the driver had not been guilty. All of Ms. He ' s claims were rejected.
On the night of 21 November 2020, Ms. He went out with her own Shenari pet dog, who crossed the street without a dog rope. The surveillance video showed that the dog quickly crossed the non-motorized lane into the motorway and came into contact with the right rear of a normal vehicle, before it fell. Ms. He came to pick up the puppy. According to the surveillance, there were no crossings at the site.
Subsequently, in the absence of agreement on the issue of compensation, Ms. He brought the driver, Mr. Zhang, before the West City Court. Ms. He found that Mr. Zhang had failed in his duty of care and was guilty. First, Mr. Zhang, as a driver, should be able to see the location of the dog and predict its direction so as to avoid accidents. Secondly, after the accident, Mr. Zhang should be able to feel his car crushing an object and stop to check the situation, but Mr. Zhang drove away. Mr. Zhang is therefore liable.
Ms. He claims an economic loss of $2,000 based on the market value of the Shernary dog. In addition, more than two years after the dog was raised, Ms. Herd was heartbroken by the death of her dog, who also claimed $10,000 in moral damages from the driver.
The defendant ' s driver, Mr. Zhang, argued that he was driving normally at the time of the incident, and that it was too late for him to notice a dog rolling.
After hearing, the court found that Ms. Haugh was walking the dog outdoors without a towed rope and allowed the pet dog to enter the motorway, which had a greater traffic. According to the surveillance video, the dog entered the motorway faster, and when the dog came out of the green belt, Mr. Zhang's motor vehicle had gone beyond the dog's path. This goes beyond what motor vehicle drivers can observe or predict in advance. Therefore, no fault of the driver could be established in the case of the dog ' s contact with the right rear wheel of the vehicle.
In addition, taking into account the vehicle, personnel and the smaller size of the dog involved in the accident in the motor lanes and non-motorized lanes at the time, Ms. He maintained that it was difficult to establish that Mr. Zhang had fled while knowing that he had run over the dog. Plus the fact that the driver was not guilty of the incident, he should not be held to account for his obligation to provide relief.
The Western City Court rejected Ms. Ha's entire claim. After the first instance judgement, Ms. He pleaded not guilty to the appeal, and the judgement was upheld in the recent end-of-day trial in the Second Chamber.