At night, Ms. Zhang jogged the road inside the district and met Ms. Wang, who was walking the dog. Ms. Wang tried to take back the dog rope and the parties avoided it, causing Ms. Zhang to trip over the dog rope and fall and get hurt. Ms. Zhang brought Ms. Wang before the Court to claim compensation for medical expenses, mobile phone maintenance, etc. totalling $4646.8. The People ' s Court of the Haidian District of Beijing held Ms. Wang liable for 80 per cent of the liability and Ms. Zhang for 20 per cent of the liability.
The plaintiff, Ms. Zhang, claimed that, at around 9 p.m. on the night of the incident, Ms. Zhang was jogging along the community road in her neighbourhood and travelling to the west gate of the district, when Ms. Wang brought her dog in reverse. When it was dark at that time, Ms. Wang found Ms. Zhang, raised her dog rope to hold her dog back. Ms. Zhang was in hiding and the raised dog rope fell directly into the middle of the road. The following day, Ms. Zhang went to the hospital and repaired her mobile phone, as pain in her right leg was not reduced. Ms. Wang was subsequently informed that she had refused to assume responsibility and to conciliate and had therefore appealed to the court for compensation.
Ms. Wang argued that she did not agree to Ms. Zhang ' s claim. When she walked with her dog, she tried to take back the rope, but Ms. Zhang fell too fast. Ms. Zhang did have abrasions on her leg, but examined herself and said that there was no fracture and refused to go to the hospital. On several subsequent occasions, Ms. Zhang had not agreed to go to the hospital. Ms. Zhang ran backwards at the time of the incident, and the lights were darker in the sub-district, which was not intentional, and Ms. Zhang had committed gross negligence herself. Accordingly, only Ms. Zhang ' s medical expenses were awarded compensation, while the rest did not.
After hearing, the Court found that the main point of contention in the present case was the division of responsibility between the parties. Perpetrators are responsible for violating the civil rights and interests of others. The aggrieved person is also at fault for the harm done and can mitigate the responsibility of the infringer. In accordance with article 17 (4) of the regulations governing dogs in the city of Beijing, when a dog leaves the house, it shall be chained to an adult, the dog shall carry the dog registration certificate and shall avoid the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women and children. It can be seen that dog-bearers have a reasonable duty to avoid pedestrians when travelling with dogs. This obligation is intended to regulate the proper safety management of dogs only by the dogkeeper or manager, in order to maintain the safety and suitability of the environment in which the dog is located and to ensure that the pedestrian does not cause unnecessary risk.
In this case, Ms. Wang, when walking with her dog in the district, used only a chain of dogs and led by her personally, but given the fact that the location of the incident was a road accessible to pedestrians in the district and that the time of the incident was a relatively high number of people travelling on summer nights, she should exercise a reasonable duty of suspense to effectively prevent the influence of the dog or chain on others. At the time of the incident, Ms. Wang ' s failure to take timely preventive measures led to Ms. Zhang ' s fall and injury on the chain of beads, and Ms. Wang ' s behaviour was wrong and was liable for the corresponding violations.
Ms. Zhang, as an adult, also has a duty of care when running at night in the sub-region, paying attention to the surrounding environment, so that Ms. Zhang has also made a mistake about the damage, which could adequately relieve Ms. Wang of her responsibilities.
In summary, the Court found Ms. Wang to be liable for 80 per cent and Ms. Zhang herself 20 per cent, depending on the degree of fault of both parties.
Judge's interpretation
The Civil Code of the People ' s Republic of China provides that the perpetrator shall be liable for damage caused by his or her fault to the civil rights and interests of others. The responsibility of the infringer may be mitigated if the person to whom the violation is directed is wrong about the occurrence or extension of the same damage.
It should be noted that in the present case, the damage caused by the tripling of a person by a canine rope is not caused by animal damage, and therefore the relevant provisions of Chapter IX of Title VII of the Civil Code of the People ' s Republic of China on liability for damage caused by animal breeding are not applicable, but rather the principle of responsibility for fault in general tort.
In cases where both parties have erred in the occurrence of damage, the basic rule for determining the ratio of responsibility between the two parties is to compare the magnitude of the wrongs committed by the infringer and the victim. The standard usually used is: (1) to judge the extent of the error on the basis of the degree of risk of the act and the ability to avoid it, the greater the risk of the act and the greater the ability to avoid the risk; and (2) to judge the extent of the error on the basis of the content of the duty of care and the standard of care, the greater the error the perpetrator will be to determine the extent of the failure to do so. At the same time, there is a distinction between the standards of fault of the abuser and the victim, and a lower or subjective standard should be applied to the victim.
In this regard, it is important to remind pet dog breeders to comply with the requirements for dogs to prevent possible risks and disputes. In accordance with the Law of the People ' s Republic of China on Animal Diseases, which came into force on 1 May 2021, when a dog leaves the household, he shall wear a dog ' s licence and take measures such as canine rope to prevent it from causing only harm and spreading disease. It is an offence not to have a dog rope, but to leave the house with a dog rope should also be avoided for the elderly, persons with disabilities, pregnant women and children, while at the same time preventing the dog from causing only adverse consequences, the dog rope must be protected against harm, and canine ropes should not be recommended for longer than 1.5 metres.