Dog Bite

reid123

Hi, Our dog was bitten by another dog a week ago. A family member was walking our dog down a road and another dog came running out of a garden close-by and began to attack our dog. Our dog tried to run away and avoid being bitten but unfortunately received two effective bites to both his front leg and back leg. The attacking dog had to be kicked numerous times before he backed off and stopped attacking our dog.

After taking him to the vet and getting a full examination, he had a puncture wound to his back leg with a large area of muscle and internal tissue damage and the front leg received internal tissue damage.

The damage is not too serious and he is now on a course of antibiotics and anti inflammatories/pain killers. The vet said he will have to wear a cone until his wounds heal and he will also have some hair loss in the affected areas. We were also told that if his current course of medication does not resolve the issues he will have to start onto steroid treatment.

To date, the veterinary bill is approx. €100 and this is to go up as he's due back in a weeks time for a review.

My question is, what course of action can I take to recover my expenses and any future medical expenses that arise from his injuries? Have I any legal standing for trying to recover these expenses?

Mr. Incognito

1. Approach owner. If no satisfaction

2. Report unmuzzled free roming dog to police

3. Sue in small claims court.

NUTLEY BOY

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

1. Approach owner. If no satisfaction

2. Report unmuzzled free roming dog to police

3. Sue in small claims court.

Does SCC have jurisdiction over this ? Probably a District Court job.

234

reid123 wrote: »

Hi, Our dog was bitten by another dog a week ago. A family member was walking our dog down a road and another dog came running out of a garden close-by and began to attack our dog. Our dog tried to run away and avoid being bitten but unfortunately received two effective bites to both his front leg and back leg. The attacking dog had to be kicked numerous times before he backed off and stopped attacking our dog.

After taking him to the vet and getting a full examination, he had a puncture wound to his back leg with a large area of muscle and internal tissue damage and the front leg received internal tissue damage.

The damage is not too serious and he is now on a course of antibiotics and anti inflammatories/pain killers. The vet said he will have to wear a cone until his wounds heal and he will also have some hair loss in the affected areas. We were also told that if his current course of medication does not resolve the issues he will have to start onto steroid treatment.

To date, the veterinary bill is approx. €100 and this is to go up as he's due back in a weeks time for a review.

My question is, what course of action can I take to recover my expenses and any future medical expenses that arise from his injuries? Have I any legal standing for trying to recover these expenses?

Short answer yes. Strict liability for dog owners. Long/accurate answer: unless you have the legal experience to research and bring a claim yourself you will need to go to a solicitor.

Might be worth speaking to the owner of the other dog and asking them to cover the bill without getting a lawyer involved for such a small amount.

Atlantic Dawn

Was your dog on a lead at the time?

conorh91

234 wrote: »

Short answer yes. Strict liability for dog owners.

Only for attacks on humans and damage to livestock, I think?

The control of Dogs Act 1986 limits the definition of livestock to “cattle, sheep, swine, horses and all other equine animals, poultry, goats and deer not in the wild state"

I haven't looked up the amendments to the 1986 Act but as far as I know the dog owner would need to prove negligence.

Logically, strict liability can't go both ways.

Discodog

Pretty easy to prove negligence. The dog appears to of been out minus it's owner therefore not under effective control. It does depend on whether the OP's dog was under control.

In any event you have to talk to or write to the owner first & I would report the matter to the local Dog Warden.

conorh91

Discodog wrote: »

Pretty easy to prove negligence. The dog appears to of been out minus it's owner therefore not under effective control. It does depend on whether the OP's dog was under control.

A factual question of whether an owner is negligent does not not necessarily depend on whether another dog is under effectual control. It's not that straightforward.

Under the principle of scienter, and the law of negligence, the owner would have to have had some foresight of an attack.

The principle of scienter requires that a plaintiff show that the dog, in this case, has a tendancy towards violent behaviour and that the owner did not discharge his duty to try control the tendency.

The law of negligence requires a different but similar duty of foreseeability, as well as some extra conditions thrown in.

Given the probably modest sums involved, it's doubtful that a litigious approach (at least, a civil action) would meet its basic objective.

That applies to all dog-on-dog attacks. Strict liability rules apply elsewhere as 234 has said.

Discodog

conorh91 wrote: »

A factual question of whether an owner is negligent does not not necessarily depend on whether another dog is under effectual control. It's not that straightforward.

Under the principle of scienter, and the law of negligence, the owner would have to have had some foresight of an attack.

The principle of scienter requires that a plaintiff show that the dog, in this case, has a tendancy towards violent behaviour and that the owner did not discharge his duty to try control the tendency.

The law of negligence requires a different but similar duty of foreseeability, as well as some extra conditions thrown in.

Given the probably modest sums involved, it's doubtful that a litigious approach (at least, a civil action) would meet its basic objective.

That applies to all dog-on-dog attacks. Strict liability rules apply elsewhere as 234 has said.

If the Op's dog was on a lead, which at the moment we don't know, then it is obvious that the defendants dog exhibited aggressive behaviour. Whether the owner knew or not, they had a legal obligation to keep their dog under effective control. The Control of Dogs Act makes the assumption that any dog can be aggressive.

I know that Judges can be an unpredictable breed but I would be pretty confident that they would find in favour of an innocent party being attacked by a dog that is loose on the street.

What would be the situation if the defendant's dog had run into the road & caused a vehicle collision ?

conorh91

Discodog wrote: »

If the Op's dog was on a lead, which at the moment we don't know, then it is obvious that the defendants dog exhibited aggressive behaviour.

The question of which dog delivered the bite is not in dispute here, but the scienter principle refers to a tendency, an inclination of some sort. There's a first time for everything with dogs' behaviour, yet until that first time, there's not necessarily any known tendency to misbehave.

Whether the owner knew or not, they had a legal obligation to keep their dog under effective control.

A dog may be under effectual control when it is controlled proportionately to a reasonable owner's awareness of its nature. I believe this is partially why that section is so vague, it gives dog-owners the freedom to control their dogs in a case-by-case way.

Most people would say that an always-placid family lab, neutered and well-socialised, doesn't need a choke collar or a muzzle to play down the park. Not so in the case of a young, unsocialised mastiff, literally full of jizz and vigour.

Of course, if the dog is one of the specified breeds singled-out for special care, the scope for reasonable judgement is abrogated

What would be the situation if the defendant's dog had run into the road & caused a vehicle collision ?

It depends what caused the collision. If the driver were forced to swerve to avoid the dog and crashed, the strict liability rule would still not apply, because the dog sought to attack a vehicle, not a person. Or it may be that the dog simply rambled onto the road, which more properly discloses a cause of action in negligence which, again, requires an element of foresight.

There would therefore be scope for the driver(s) to pursue the owner under the law of negligence and scienter, just as here.

But no strict liability as would arise if a dog lunged at and bit a passerby on foot.