Dog bites: Is the owner liable?
The incidents of attacks by dogs that are not properly trained or restrained seem to be on the rise. Terence Pillay finds out who’s at fault.
The other day I read, with shock, the story of two dogs that arrived on a property next door to their owner’s and attacked the occupants of the house, including a small child. The story reminded me of the incident that took place in December last year, where my friend’s child was attacked and killed by two Alsatian cross-breeds in Howick.
My friend Estelle’s son James was playing in their back yard when the dogs escaped from their property and attacked him. He was rushed to the hospital and died later that day.
After the attack, I read that an internationally recognised dog trainer had spoken out against owners who keep what she described as “potentially dangerous animals without ensuring that they are properly trained and socialised.”
“Not understanding how a dog’s instincts function and how dogs naturally communicate is what causes them to be aggressive. Families need to learn the simple natural laws that govern dog behaviour. If a dog appears to be aggressive, owners should get help immediately,” the dog trainer was quoted as saying in a local newspaper.
In October last year, an 84-year-old woman sued the owners of the two dogs that bit her and won R175 000 in damages in the Pietermaritzburg High Court. The dogs had bitten her on her head, back, ear and body.
The court found that the dog owners had failed to take steps to guard against the reasonable possibility their dogs might leave the property; they had a duty to ensure that when the driveway gates were opened, their dogs would not run out into the street and had failed to exercise due care and consideration for other lawful road users, neighbours and, in particular, the safety of this pensioner.
I agree with the court. If you own a dog you should make sure it’s environment is secure and in the event that they do run out of gates, they are trained sufficiently to understand the authority in your voice when you call them back, or ideally, when the gates are opened, for them to be restrained from running out.
Apart from the possibility of an attack, if the dogs are aggressive or a bold breed, there’s also the issue of them risking being knocked over. And this in turn also has serious impact on motorists using the roads.
In August last year, a woman tried to protect her sister and son from being attacked by dogs but ended up being viciously attacked herself when the animals ripped off her skin off and left her brutally scarred. Apparently this 26-year-old mother was on her way home when three Rottweilers aggressively attacked the family. In November last year a 21-month old child was rushed to hospital after being attacked by his neighbour’s Rottweiler. Only a month before that, a South Coast woman was on her way home from work when she was attacked by five dogs, believed to belong to her neighbour, losing a finger in the process, among other injuries. Last week a 58-year-old woman was severely injured after trying to protect her dog from being attacked by other dogs in Kloof.
So who’s at fault when a horrible incident like this occurs?
According to an article I read on kwazuzulwazi.co.za, legally speaking, dog owners are subject to the action known as “actio de pauperie.” What this simply means is that if a dog attacks and injures you, the owner may be held liable for paying you compensation – without your having to prove that the owner was negligent or that the dog was under the owner’s control when you were bitten. This is assuming that you acted in a reasonable manner and were entitled to be in the area where you were attacked.
The article went on to explain that a claim against a dog owner may be rejected if the owner can verify that:
· the dog was provoked to attack, for example by someone hurting the animal
· the victim wasn’t entitled to be on the property where the attack occurred
· the victim was warned of the inherent danger but chose to interact with the animal anyway
· the animal didn’t behave in a way “contrary to its nature”, meaning that the attack should reasonably have been expected and avoided by the victim.
Have you ever been a victim of an attack by dogs that were not properly restrained in public, or should not have been on your property in the first place?
My friend Estelle’s son James was playing in their back yard when the dogs escaped from their property and attacked him. He was rushed to the hospital and died later that day.
After the attack, I read that an internationally recognised dog trainer had spoken out against owners who keep what she described as “potentially dangerous animals without ensuring that they are properly trained and socialised.”
“Not understanding how a dog’s instincts function and how dogs naturally communicate is what causes them to be aggressive. Families need to learn the simple natural laws that govern dog behaviour. If a dog appears to be aggressive, owners should get help immediately,” the dog trainer was quoted as saying in a local newspaper.
In October last year, an 84-year-old woman sued the owners of the two dogs that bit her and won R175 000 in damages in the Pietermaritzburg High Court. The dogs had bitten her on her head, back, ear and body.
The court found that the dog owners had failed to take steps to guard against the reasonable possibility their dogs might leave the property; they had a duty to ensure that when the driveway gates were opened, their dogs would not run out into the street and had failed to exercise due care and consideration for other lawful road users, neighbours and, in particular, the safety of this pensioner.
I agree with the court. If you own a dog you should make sure it’s environment is secure and in the event that they do run out of gates, they are trained sufficiently to understand the authority in your voice when you call them back, or ideally, when the gates are opened, for them to be restrained from running out.
Apart from the possibility of an attack, if the dogs are aggressive or a bold breed, there’s also the issue of them risking being knocked over. And this in turn also has serious impact on motorists using the roads.
In August last year, a woman tried to protect her sister and son from being attacked by dogs but ended up being viciously attacked herself when the animals ripped off her skin off and left her brutally scarred. Apparently this 26-year-old mother was on her way home when three Rottweilers aggressively attacked the family. In November last year a 21-month old child was rushed to hospital after being attacked by his neighbour’s Rottweiler. Only a month before that, a South Coast woman was on her way home from work when she was attacked by five dogs, believed to belong to her neighbour, losing a finger in the process, among other injuries. Last week a 58-year-old woman was severely injured after trying to protect her dog from being attacked by other dogs in Kloof.
So who’s at fault when a horrible incident like this occurs?
According to an article I read on kwazuzulwazi.co.za, legally speaking, dog owners are subject to the action known as “actio de pauperie.” What this simply means is that if a dog attacks and injures you, the owner may be held liable for paying you compensation – without your having to prove that the owner was negligent or that the dog was under the owner’s control when you were bitten. This is assuming that you acted in a reasonable manner and were entitled to be in the area where you were attacked.
The article went on to explain that a claim against a dog owner may be rejected if the owner can verify that:
· the dog was provoked to attack, for example by someone hurting the animal
· the victim wasn’t entitled to be on the property where the attack occurred
· the victim was warned of the inherent danger but chose to interact with the animal anyway
· the animal didn’t behave in a way “contrary to its nature”, meaning that the attack should reasonably have been expected and avoided by the victim.
Have you ever been a victim of an attack by dogs that were not properly restrained in public, or should not have been on your property in the first place?
You can email Terence Pillay at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @terencepillay1 and tweet him your thoughts.