What happens if a dog bites someone in your back garden?

cold_filter

Given a situation where a burglar is bitten in your back garden/home by your dog what are the legalities of this. Say he is caught can he petition to have the dog put down?

cowzerp

Probably With Our Stupid Laws

cold_filter

cowzerp wrote:

Probably With Our Stupid Laws

Thats what is worrying me... Our neighbours house was broken into a week ago but shes an old lady who lives by herself. I must go ask the gardai on this one

Glowing

I think it might be okay if you have a 'Beware of Dangerous dog' sign - that probably absolves you of any responsibility ....

peasant

I have heard (and this may not be legally correct) that it's actually the other way round.
Once you put up a "dangerous dog" or "beware of dog" warning sign, apparently just by that alone you're half way down the road of "admitting" liability.

This question probably would be best off in the legal forum

Yellow Snow

If someone is breaking into my house and I beat the living c**p out of them, they have the right to take legal action against me for assault.

I can only assume if my dog chips in and bites the SOB a few times he's liable too!!

My advice, take the burglar upstairs and then let the dog have a field day!!

Jumpy

Yellow Snow wrote:

If someone is breaking into my house and I beat the living c**p out of them, they have the right to take legal action against me for assault.

That is no longer the case. Reasonable force is now legal.

Yellow Snow

Jumpy wrote:

That is no longer the case. Reasonable force is now legal.

So you do learn something new everyday Thanks Jumpy

scorphonic

Reasonable force...Judges decision on what can be termed reasonable in that case so!!

Our man in Havana

Moved to Legal Discussion, feel free to send it back if not suitable.

PeakOutput

my view would be that reasonable force is the same force used against you plus a little bit{legal term}.

Ie someone comes at you with a baseball bat you have the right to pick up a golf club and start swinging..........they have a knife you grab a slightly bigger knife......they have a pistol you have a shotgun etc etc

dermot_sheehan

Occupiers Liability Act 1995 reforms the law for negligence relating to occupiers places a duty on occupiers only not to intentionally injure a criminal trespasser, section 21(3) of the Control of Dogs Act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/act/pub/0032/sec0021.html#zza32y1986s21

provides that there is liability for a trespasser only in accordance with the laws of negligence.

The interaction between these sections is not clear and i'm unaware of any case law (whether the modification of the common law rules by the 1995 act constitute the law of negligence referred to in s. 21(3) of the control of dogs act, but it appears you are only liable for a criminal trespasser if you intentionally have your dog attack an intruder.

Even if you intentionally have your dog attack an intruder you have the general defence that you can use "reasonable force", to defend yourself, property or to effect a lawful arrest.

johnnyskeleton

gabhain7 wrote:

The interaction between these sections is not clear and i'm unaware of any case law (whether the modification of the common law rules by the 1995 act constitute the law of negligence referred to in s. 21(3) of the control of dogs act, but it appears you are only liable for a criminal trespasser if you intentionally have your dog attack an intruder.

I would say that liability arises if you keep a dog on the premises intending that, or being reckless as to whether it is, a danger to trespassers. Keeping a hungry doberman for the sole purpose of attacking burglars would, in my view, incur liability under the act.

gabhain7 wrote:

Even if you intentionally have your dog attack an intruder you have the general defence that you can use "reasonable force", to defend yourself, property or to effect a lawful arrest.

Reasonable in this sense means that you act to defend yourself and that you would use the least amount of force necessary. I find it very hard to view setting an attack dog on an intruder as an act of defence. It would be very different if your English Sheepdog, in a desparate attempt to protect it's owner, started biting an intruder.

But in what circumstances would this really arise? If it is a real burglar and they got away then nothing further would happen. If they don't get away then they might get a few grand, but they might also get a few years in chokey. It's not really the burglar's paradise that the landowning lobby make it out to be. And what about if someone accidentally wanders onto another's property and is mistaken for a burglar?

dermot_sheehan

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I would say that liability arises if you keep a dog on the premises intending that, or being reckless as to whether it is, a danger to trespassers. Keeping a hungry doberman for the sole purpose of attacking burglars would, in my view, incur liability under the act.

According to section 4 of the 1995 Occupiers Liability Act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/print.html
Liability for a trespasser is only if you intentionally or acting with "reckless disregard" cause them injury. The Supreme Court in SF Trust has held "reckless disregard" to be a high standard.

With regard to a criminal trespasser however s. 4(3) provides that the duty is only not to injure intentionally, though the courts can in the interests of justice impose a duty not to act with reckless disregard.

I fail to see how if you keep a dog that bites a criminal trespasser how you can be civily liable unless it's proved that you intentionally caused injury to the criminal with the dog.


Also regarding the question as to whether the dog could be put down, there is a general power given to the District Court by s. 22 of the Control of Dogs Act that upon complaint that a dog is dangerous and not being kept under control to order the dog be destroyed.

Tom Young

Slightly off the bite aspect, there an interesting commetary on the Criminal Law (Home Defence) Bill 2006 here

johnnyskeleton

gabhain7 wrote:

According to section 4 of the 1995 Occupiers Liability Act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/print.html
Liability for a trespasser is only if you intentionally or acting with "reckless disregard" cause them injury. The Supreme Court in SF Trust has held "reckless disregard" to be a high standard.

Occupier's Liability Act, 1995 wrote:

4.—(1) In respect of a danger existing on premises, an occupier owes towards a recreational user of the premises or a trespasser thereon ("the person") a duty—

( a ) not to injure the person or damage the property of the person intentionally, and

( b ) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person,

except in so far as the occupier extends the duty in accordance with section 5.

I would interpret this as meaning that there is a duty not to have a danger existing on the premises which, intentionally or recklessly could injury or damage a trespasser. It is, in my view, not limited to specifically intending harm in the sense of setting a dog on somebody or throwing them into a bear trap, and it imposes a duty not to have a dangerous dog or dangerous bear trap intending or being reckless as to the injury it may cause.

gabhain7 wrote:

With regard to a criminal trespasser however s. 4(3) provides that the duty is only not to injure intentionally, though the courts can in the interests of justice impose a duty not to act with reckless disregard.

I fail to see how if you keep a dog that bites a criminal trespasser how you can be civily liable unless it's proved that you intentionally caused injury to the criminal with the dog.

If it is proved that you had the dog on the premises intending that it would be a danger to burglars, then liability would, in my view, arise. As I say, having a specific attack dog is very different to having a gentle old dulux dog. In the same way that having a knife on the kitchen table is very different to putting bits of broken glass along the top of the wall.

alexdenby6

put it this way, who would be stupid enough to jump into a garden with a doberman or a gsd in it if they dont know the dog.