Law regarding dog barking

inbodwetrust

I am studying first year law and have a question to those more experienced and educated than me .


At home we have a dog that according to the neighbour keeps on barking despite us living in the house not been able to hear it. Anyway he has threatened to take further action if the barking does not stop, the thing is there is been a bit of a history between our family and this neighbour and I think the dog barking is just an excuse to get at us. After studying Liability for animals in college, I presume he would make a complaint under the control of dogs act 1986 where strict liability applies .

Does anyone know what constitutes excessive barking?, he sleep indoors so there is not an issue at night.

Thanks for any comments/advice

seamus

Can't find any legal definitions for it, it's probably a common sense thing.

Given that dogs are prone to barking, I would suggest that "excessive" probably needs to fulfill the following criteria:
1. The barking is for a prolonged period (say more than 30 minutes)
2. These prolonged periods occur regularly, e.g. twice daily

The neighbour also needs to show that a nuisance is being caused - so if the neighbour is absent during the day, there is no nuisance.

I imagine if you have a look for other definitions of excessive noise - e.g. in relation to construction works - then you might have something you can use as reference.

I've heard of a number of such cases like these dismissed when the owner took a few hours footage of the animal being left unattended and there's little or no barking.

inbodwetrust

Thanks for the response much appreciated

Just thinking there about the principle of scienter that deals with animals and whether liability can be found. In the case of Buckle v Holmes a cat killed 13 pigeons and two bantams and liability was not found as it was the natural instinct of the animal. Could a dog owner not claim that barking is the natural instinct of the animal? and provided the owner does not cause the dog to bark there could be no case agaisnt the owner

Sorry if this seems ignorant and naive as I have only been studying law for a couple of months and not quite an expert yet to say the least!!

MrPudding

inbodwetrust wrote: »

Thanks for the response much appreciated

Just thinking there about the principle of scienter that deals with animals and whether liability can be found. In the case of Buckle v Holmes a cat killed 13 pigeons and two bantams and liability was not found as it was the natural instinct of the animal. Could a dog owner not claim that barking is the natural instinct of the animal? and provided the owner does not cause the dog to bark there could be no case agaisnt the owner

Sorry if this seems ignorant and naive as I have only been studying law for a couple of months and not quite an expert yet to say the least!!

Not sure about the position in Irish law, but if ti was the UK I would expect he would take an action against you in the tort of Nuisance. He would undoubtedly argue that your dog's barking is impacting his enjoyment of his property.

MrP

pirelli

inbodwetrust wrote: »

Thanks for the response much appreciated

Just thinking there about the principle of scienter that deals with animals and whether liability can be found. In the case of Buckle v Holmes a cat killed 13 pigeons and two bantams and liability was not found as it was the natural instinct of the animal. Could a dog owner not claim that barking is the natural instinct of the animal? and provided the owner does not cause the dog to bark there could be no case agaisnt the owner

Sorry if this seems ignorant and naive as I have only been studying law for a couple of months and not quite an expert yet to say the least!!

Well!

The person likely did not fortify his pigeons to such an extent that a cat couldn't get at them. It is contingent on the owner to forsee all of these outcomes and not the cat or the dog.

I don't think the onus is on the neighbour to not hear the dog barking. It's a natural human instinct to hear a barking dog and the owner would be expected to take action to prevent it casuing a nuisance.

seamus

pirelli wrote: »

The person likely did not fortify his pigeons to such an extent that a cat couldn't get at them. It is contingent on the owner to forsee all of these outcomes and not the cat or the dog.

There is also a slight difference between cats and dogs in that there is no legislation forcing any onus on the cat owner to maintain control over their pet.

So in order to find any liability on the part of the cat owner, you would need to show that the cat owner did something wrong, which they didn't. And you can't find wrongdoing in a cat attacking a bird anymore than you can find wrongdoing in a bird crapping on your car.

Dogs on the other hand are subject to laws concerning control and noise abatement and therefore the "natural instinct" argument doesn't really come into it if the dog owner can be shown to be in breach of legislation. If you substitute a cat for a dog in the above case (and transport it 65 years into the future!), the dog owner would be entirely at fault for failing to maintain control over his dog contrary to legislation.

I imagine in 1926, when the relevant control of dogs legislation didn't exist, you could possibly have made the instinct argument in regards to barking. In any case, dogs don't actually bark constantly or "excessively". While you could reasonably say that barking is a "habit common to all dogs", excessive barking is not, and you could argue that any dog who barks excessively, does so for a reason, which the owner has failed to rectify.

dermot_sheehan

Have a look at s. 108 Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992.

Complaint can be made to the District Court and court can order abatement of the noise.