Case playback.
A dog scares the old man.
An old man in late six years suddenly fell and was injured, and everything was caused by a pet dog.
A surveillance video showed that the elderly Zheng Li (alias) had encountered a brown Teddy dog lying on the steps resting while his husband was walking through an information and counselling centre. The Teddy Dog took two steps in the direction of Zheng Li, at a time when Zheng Li was approximately 3 metres away from the Teddy Dog. Zheng Li saw the dog approaching, panicking to the left to avoid falling and wounding.
Subsequently, Zheng Li was admitted to hospital for medical treatment, diagnosed with a fracture of the left femur and severed end and large rotors, and must undergo immediate surgery. After the incident, Zheng Li ' s family called the police, the police station intervened in the investigation, and Zhong Hong (alias) identified himself as the dog ' s owner in an interview, when the dog was not tied.
Zheng Li ' s injuries were later determined to be category 9. According to Zheng Li's statistics, the resulting losses include $56,000 for medical care, $15,000 for follow-up care, $135,663 for disability compensation, $5,000 for disability assessment, $30,000 for mental loss, $1,300 for inpatient food support, $5,000 for nutrition and $3,000 for transportation, for a total of $250963.
First instance: 30% responsibility for dog raising
Zheng Li filed a complaint with the Taishan People ' s Court in Guangdong Province.
During the trial, it was argued that the pet dog was walking normally rather than hitting or punching, and that the dog and Zheng Li maintained a distance. The crime was committed in a broad pavement, and those who feared dogs could choose to walk far from them. Therefore, there is no causal link between her dog and the damage in this case.
The People ' s Court of Taishan City, Guangdong Province, at first instance, found that Zheng Yi ' s losses, reduced income and increased expenses, including medical expenses, expenses for follow-up care, disability compensation, fees for identification, compensation for moral damage, allowances for inpatient meals, transportation expenses, etc., as a result of the accident, amounted to $209775.03.
Article 78 of the Law of the People ' s Republic of China on Tort Liability provides that in the event of damage caused to others by animals raised by animals, the animal breeder or manager shall be liable for the violation, provided that it can be proved that the damage was caused by wilful or gross negligence on the part of the person to whom the abuse was committed, and that the liability may be waived or mitigated. The Court considered that the surveillance video showed that the red dog was a small, gentle Teddy dog and that the red dog in the present case had failed to take safety precautions to allow him to operate in public places and to cause him to be wounded in shock as he approached Zheng Yi. Red should be held accountable as an animal breeder and manager. In addition, when Zheng Li approached the Teddy Dog, the dog did not bark, nor did it attack Zheng Li, but merely moved about 50 centimeters to her, three metres from her. Zheng Li also suffered from gross negligence as a result of excessive panic and the improper fall-and-worn measures taken to avoid them.
In practical terms, the court of first instance sentenced Zheng Yi to bear 30 per cent of Zheng Li ' s loss, or $6293.2.50.
Zheng Li and Zheng Hong both contested the first instance judgement and appealed to the Jiangmen Intermediate People ' s Court in Guangdong Province.
Second trial: Full responsibility for dog-bearers
The court of second instance confirmed the facts ascertained at first instance. Also found: Zheng Li first appeared above the left side of the surveillance video from 1919 hours to 25 seconds, moving slowly in the direction of the lower right corner of the image in order to avoid a vehicle coming from behind.
The court held, in second instance, that Zheng Li had committed gross negligence in her own right as a result of the fall and injury caused by excessive panic, and that Zheng Li bore 70 per cent of the responsibility and that the applicable law was wrong.
According to articles 78 and 79 of the Law of the People ' s Republic of China on Tort Liability, animal breeders or managers are obliged to raise or manage animals as required and to take safety measures against animals, such as damage to others caused by animals they raise or manage, and the animal breeders or managers are liable for infringement, and can only mitigate the responsibility of animal breeders or managers if the offender has committed wilful or gross negligence.
The court of second instance held, firstly, that there was no evidence that the Thai dogs that had been raised had obtained a “canine permit” in violation of article 4 of the Cantonal Dog Management Regulation, “Cities above cantons (including county towns, peri-urban areas), industrial mines, ports, airports, excursions and areas within 3 kilometres of them, economic development zones, and the locations of various townships and towns with foreign economic cooperation, are classified as restricted canine areas. The authorities of the above-mentioned regions, foreign missions, foreign nationals and others who require dogs in exceptional circumstances require the authorization of the local public security authorities to obtain a “certificate of dog adoption” and to provide the dogs only with vaccinations before they can be re-established.
Secondly, while the dogs involved do not act in direct contact with a person, such as “capturing, poking, torn-up”, the instinct is that when a stranger enters his or her own safety line. Therefore, there is only a causal link between the dog and the injury.
Thirdly, Zheng Yi's fall may have been caused by a trip of stones or by attacks by other animals, but Zheng Yi has not provided evidence to substantiate her claim, nor has there been evidence of intentional or gross negligence by Zheng Yi in the course of the injury. It follows that the losses involved in the present case were caused by the lack of regulation of animal breeding and that Zheng Li is therefore fully liable for the loss.
Finally, the court of second instance decided to award Zheng Li a total of $209775.03 in damages.
Judge alert.
Civilized dogs, starting with you and me.
As the standard of living improves, pets become increasingly family members. At the same time, however, there have been frequent incidents of pet dog attacks, and there has been a growing call to “strengthen dog management and promote civilization”.
The judge reminded that dogs primarily raise the awareness of civilized dogs, inoculate their dogs in a timely manner and take care of them, leash them when walking, respect social decency, avoid harm to others by their own pet dogs or cause panic among others.
The five situations concerning the division of liability and compensation for dog injuries are:
First: animal breeders are responsible for injuries caused by their own dogs.
Second: Damage caused by the victim ' s wilful or gross negligence may mitigate or even exonerate the breeder.
Third: if an animal attack causes damage to a third person, both the third person and the breeder are liable.
(d) Fourth: A dog who has been abandoned or has fled due to mismanagement is injured and the original breeder is liable.
The fifth category: In the case of strong animals, such as hideaways, which the State prohibits from raising, the owner bears full responsibility for the injury, regardless of the cause.
On 1 May 2021, the new Animal Disease Prevention Act of the People ' s Republic of China was introduced. Article 30 clearly stipulates that units and individual dogs shall be regularly immunized against rabies as required; If the dog is only present in the house, it shall wear the dog tag and take such measures as canine rope as are prescribed. The dog is not tied or wearing a canine, and is suspected of having committed an offence.