Dog Fight Veterinary Fees

gabbytheking

If a person was walking with a dog lets call the dog Walker(unleashed) and another dog comes and attacks walker lets call him faller(also unleashed). In a case where walker kills faller and fallers owners take faller to the vet does fallers owners take the liability for the subsequent Veterinary fees or Walkers owners? If anybody has precedents, case law or legislative back up it would be so helpful.

michael999999

Why would you take a dead dog to the vet?

gabbytheking

He was probably dying leaving the scene and prob died in the surgery. You know what I mean

Knine

Was either of the dogs in question a restricted breed such as the breeds below?

American Pit Bull Terrier

• Bull Mastiff

• Doberman Pinscher

• English Bull Terrier

• German Shepherd (Alsatian)

• Japanese Akita

• Japanese Tosa

• Rhodesian Ridgeback

• Rottweiler

• Staffordshire Bull Terrier

or crosses of the above because if they were the attacker, they are required to be muzzled and on a lead in a public place.

MagicSean

A lot would depend on the breed of dogs involved. As the previous poster mentioned there are extra rules for some breeds.

Knine

If Walker was one of the restricted breeds and was being walked with no lead or muzzle then Walkers owners are breaking the law and would be at fault and should pay the vet fees in full and hope that they don't end up in court, was Faller going for a walk by himself with no owners with him? as the law requires dogs of all breeds to be under control.

Why didnt the owners try to break up the fight?

If however neither dog was a restricted breed and simply got into a fight, then both owners are somewhat responsible as neither dog was under effective control and maybe Walkers owner would offer to pay some of the vets fees?

gabbytheking

I believe in this case study neither was a restricted breed. Walker was a Spaniel and Faller was a yorkshire terrier located on his own patch (perhaps cross) dog. Unfortunately "per case" previously Walkers owners walked with a baby "unaided" and were bitten by a different persons dog(Collie). Since then has always taken walker to accompany them never with incident before(baby and mothers fear specific reason for no break up). Unfortunately I will not be able to give specifics under forum rules however extravagant fees and replacement cost come to mind. Nobody minds fair exp however in this instance Michael is being taken. If nobody has come across a similar case before no worries they will just get on with it however should precedent be set it might allow for a fair split. Under control of dogs legislation no such ground rules are set. Dog control has been advised however in this instance has no statutory power to terminate walker or set blaim unable to advise of further action simply civil.

234

In a civil action liability for damage caused by dogs is strict, so whether there was fault or not on the part of the owner of the dog they are liable for the cost of all damage caused by the dog.

gabbytheking

To the extent of Vet fees and Replacement Costs of dog?

PS Thanks

Del2005

234 wrote: »

In a civil action liability for damage caused by dogs is strict, so whether there was fault or not on the part of the owner of the dog they are liable for the cost of all damage caused by the dog.

Since neither dog was under control could Walkers owner sue Fallers owner? As it was the animal that attacked.

jblack

I know in livery arrangements, generally, (horses) that the "lessee" (forgive my ignorance) is responsible for all vet bills and any damage caused etc.

mattser

What an idiotic post and follow up.

Is this really the clown society we have become ? Who cares about walker and faller ? Certainly not an elderly person or child who could have been attacked by those unguarded vicious mutts. Both owners are the ones to face action here.

jblack

mattser wrote: »

What an idiotic post and follow up.

Is this really the clown society we have become ? Who cares about walker and faller ? Certainly not an elderly person or child who could have been attacked by those unguarded vicious mutts. Both owners are the ones to face action here.

It's not an idiotic post it's a genuine question seeking some advice on where to look for direction. There is nothing in the OP about children or elderly people being attacked and from the facts offered it is simply a question of who is liable for any vet fees.

I suggest you read the post properly before throwing out unnecessary criticism.

234

Del2005 wrote: »

Since neither dog was under control could Walkers owner sue Fallers owner? As it was the animal that attacked.

It's been a while since I read up on this but as far as I remember liability for any damage caused by a dog is strict (unlike other animals). There is legislation to this effect. So if you dog causes damage you are liable. Whether you are in control or notl whether you wer negligent or not, etc.

jblack

234 wrote: »

It's been a while since I read up on this but as far as I remember liability for any damage caused by a dog is strict (unlike other animals). There is legislation to this effect. So if you dog causes damage you are liable. Whether you are in control or notl whether you wer negligent or not, etc.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/96.html&query=dog&method=boolean

Del2005

mattser wrote: »

What an idiotic post and follow up.

Is this really the clown society we have become ? Who cares about walker and faller ? Certainly not an elderly person or child who could have been attacked by those unguarded vicious mutts. Both owners are the ones to face action here.

Animals attack animals, I'm sure if a person had been attacked this thread wouldn't exist.

jblack wrote: »

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/96.html&query=dog&method=boolean

Is that not about a dog attacking a person and the person being injured. The OP was a dog attacking another dog and loosing. I apologise as I couldn't actually read it and had to skip to the end, can someone translate for me please?

jblack

Del2005 wrote: »

Animals attack animals, I'm sure if a person had been attacked this thread wouldn't exist.



Is that not about a dog attacking a person and the person being injured. The OP was a dog attacking another dog and loosing. I apologise as I couldn't actually read it and had to skip to the end, can someone translate for me please?

A poster was asking about strict liability for dogs and who is liable, that Irish case deals with those topics.

It's not strictly on point but there isn't a tonne of caselaw on dogs so if someone was interested it's there to read and get a rough idea.

gabbytheking

Thanks for all the helpful posts lads very much appreciated. We just paid the €475 cost of new dog plus vet fees because we decided its better to keep on good terms with neighbours.

Thanks especially to jBlack for that case law it was very informative. I suppose the real sore point was the dog attacked ours firstly and secondly the first time the mother was attacked we didn't ask the attackers owner to pay anything just to put the dog down the scar still sits on the mothers leg and a fear of walking on our local roads has never subsided especially after the second indecent. On another level at least she had the dog maybe if we didn't the terrier may have attacked the mother due to her fear. Not worth thinking about!!!. Thanks alot lads and have a great christmas!!!

seagull

Just checking I understand this properly.

Both dogs unleashed.
Dog A attacks dog B.
Dog B retaliates and kills dog A.
Dog A's owners are now looking for payment of vet bill and compensation for the loss of their dog.

gabbytheking

seagull wrote: »

Just checking I understand this properly.

Both dogs unleashed.
Dog A attacks dog B.
Dog B retaliates and kills dog A.
Dog A's owners are now looking for payment of vet bill and compensation for the loss of their dog.

Thats the one Seagull but dog A was on his/beside his own patch while dog B was being walked by his owners on a public road. All sorted now anyhows.

castie

gabbytheking wrote: »

the first time the mother was attacked we didn't ask the attackers owner to pay anything just to put the dog down the scar still sits on the mothers leg and a fear of walking on our local roads has never subsided especially after the second indecent.

About 16-18 years ago now (christ I now feel old) my brother was bitten by a neighbours dog. My mother reported it and the dog was put down.

You say you requested they put the dog down but made no report?
I would say you need to report this if the owner does not take action.
It could be a child attacked next and it may not be so lucky as to emerge with just a scar.