Getting bitten by dog inside a restaurant or pub

Atlantic Dawn

There's been lots in the media recently about people wanting dog friendly pubs and restaurants where they can bring there dog with them. What I am wondering is that if a premises is to allow customers to bring dogs with them on the premises where would responsibility be if another customer on the premises was to be bitten, would it be with the premises owner for having a policy allowing dogs or with the dog owner for not controlling their dog?

nuac

MOD
Assuming this is a hypothetical question will allow the thread to run for now
However please note that the Forum charter does not allow legal advice

lifeandtimes

if you go into an establishment and get punched by another patron whos at fault? The person inflicting the punch or the restaurant for letting that person in?

I think it self explanatory, if you go into a place knowing that there are dogs in their you accept the risk plus im sure they would have signs saying they accept no liability of any damage done because of the dogs, same as nowadays if your stuff gets robbed in a place, the dog owner would need to be in control of the dog,same as if it was in a park were dogs and people are etc

kidneyfan

There is clear potential liability on the part of the publican.

coylemj

kidneyfan wrote: »

There is clear potential liability on the part of the publican.

Conjoining 'clear' (=definitely) and 'potential' (=possibly) makes that statement clear as mud i.e. completely meaningless

There either is or there isn't liability.

Indricotherium

coylemj wrote: »

Conjoining 'clear' (=definitely) and 'potential' (=possibly) makes that statement clear as mud i.e. completely meaningless

There either is or there isn't liability.

Definite liability for something that might happen, should it happen? I think that is pretty clear.

Atlantic Dawn

Yes purely hypothetical.

I suppose it goes down to the assumption of a person entering a pub that there will be no dog inside unless otherwise indicated for them to be aware of a potential risk.

GM228

kidneyfan wrote: »

There is clear potential liability on the part of the publican.

coylemj wrote: »

Conjoining 'clear' (=definitely) and 'potential' (=possibly) makes that statement clear as mud i.e. completely meaningless

There either is or there isn't liability.

Indricotherium wrote: »

Definite liability for something that might happen, should it happen? I think that is pretty clear.

When a dog attacks a person the strict liability rests fully with the owner as per statute. Strict liability is the legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for damages regardless of any negligence or fault on their part.

There is little defence to strict liability generally bar possibly the defence of the wrongful act of a third party, however that defene has only ever been succesfully applied to strict liability in cattle trespass cases, but it could possibly provide a defence in a dog bite case if the publican performed a wrongful act or was neglegent.

If a trespasser was injured by a dog (as opposed to say a punter) on the premises I wonder how the publican as opposed to the owner of the dog would fair out under occupiers liability/the Civil Liability Act if neglegence of the publican came into play?

Kings Inns or bust

It's well settled publicans can be vicariously liable for tortious acts committed on the premises, I see no reason why this is any different. Clearly potential liability exists, maybe, given the right set of circumstances, possibly definitely.

Peregrinus

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Clearly potential liability exists, maybe, given the right set of circumstances, possibly definitely.

Well, perhaps.

kidneyfan

GM228 wrote: »

When a dog attacks a person the strict liability rests fully with the owner as per statute. Strict liability is the legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for damages regardless of any negligence or fault on their part.

Walsh and Ryan woman punched in face in pub sued publican and won. distinguish from the case where Feeney found publican not liable for drink driver mentioned location in judgement.

<Mod snip - a little insensitive>

GM228

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

It's well settled publicans can be vicariously liable for tortious acts committed on the premises, I see no reason why this is any different. Clearly potential liability exists, maybe, given the right set of circumstances, possibly definitely.

But there would still have to be negligence on the publican or their staffs part, under their duty of care for example, forseeability of the danger would be the big issue I would imagine.

Vicarious liability is based on the employee-employer basis (i.e the employer is responsible for the employees actions) and not a customer-employer basis, in other words if the employee or their employer have done no wrong or are not negligent hey are not liable for the acts of a third party.

Has such a case of vicarious liability ever been successful against a publican where there is a strict liability already in place on someone other than the publican or their staff, without a level of neglegence I can't see how there could be.

kidneyfan wrote: »

Walsh and Ryan woman punched in face in pub sued publican and won. distinguish from the case where Feeney found publican not liable for drink driver mentioned location in judgement.

<Mod snip - a little insensitive>

Walsh v Ryan involved negligence on the publicans part due to supplying alcohol to the punter who the staff knew had a propensity to violence.

Is it even comparable to a dog bite where the publican probably has no idea of a propensity of a dog and where strict liabilty lies with the owner of the dog under satute.

HivemindXX

Say for instance then that the dog has been growing and snapping at people, which the publican is aware of, but they have not asked the owner to remove it. That sounds like a more comparable situation where the publican could be seen as negligent.

Kings Inns or bust

GM228 wrote: »

Vicarious liability is based on the employee-employer basis...

Quite tired so apologies for the bluntness and lack of elaboration but that's only one example of vicarious liability. It does not have to be an employer-employee relationship.

Peregrinus

I don't think a publican's liability for injuries inflicted by a dog on the premises would likely be founded on vicarious liablity; more like occupier's liability.

GM228

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Quite tired so apologies for the bluntness and lack of elaboration but that's only one example of vicarious liability. It does not have to be an employer-employee relationship.

Yes that's correct, it can be many other examples such as principle-agent, firm-partner, parent-child etc but I'm speaking in the context of the discussion based on the publican, their staff and a customer.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think a publican's liability for injuries inflicted by a dog on the premises would likely be founded on vicarious liablity; more like occupier's liability.

This would come under their duty of care and again I'm sure negligence/breach of duty of care would need to come into play before it could be applied. The duty of care is a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances, would this entail a policy of all dogs requiring muzzles for example, or that dogs be leashed and tied to a table or that other customers are required not to approach dogs, what would be reasonable? Obviously that would be for a court to decide.

A publican can also restrict or vary their duty to a customer downwards to a duty not to intentionally injure or act in reckless disregard of the customer or their property.

This may be done by a reasonable notice which the publican has adopted reasonable steps to bring to the attention of the customer.

Such reasonable steps are prima facie presumed if the notice is displayed at the normal means of access to the premises.

The notice only acts to absolve the publican though if its terms are such that they would have enabled the customer to avoid the damage or injury - but what term could that be?

Also with a statutory provision of strict liabilty of a dog owner in cases of a dog bite how would that affect occupiers liability?

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Also with a statutory provision of strict liabilty of a dog owner in cases of a dog bite how would that affect occupiers liability?

Strict liablity doesn't mean exclusive liability. It could be that in particular circumstances an animal's owner has strict liability for injury inflicted by the animal - i.e. it's not necessary to show that the owner was negligent or reckless - but someone else might also have liability as an occupier of premises where the injury occurred, under the usual principles of occupier's liability. The injured party can sue both, and get judgment against both, and recover from whichever of them has the better insurance.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Strict liablity doesn't mean exclusive liability. It could be that in particular circumstances an animal's owner has strict liability for injury inflicted by the animal - i.e. it's not necessary to show that the owner was negligent or reckless - but someone else might also have liability as an occupier of premises where the injury occurred, under the usual principles of occupier's liability. The injured party can sue both, and get judgment against both, and recover from whichever of them has the better insurance.

Thanks I'm aware of the doctrine of strict liability, but what I'm asking is how would the liability as per the way it is written into statute affect a publican under occupiers liability, more specfically the use of the word "shall" in the Control of Dogs Act.


Hypothetical:

I'm a publican and someone sues me for a dog bite under the provisions of occupiers liability.

I point out that statute states that the owner of a dog shall be liable for damages as a result of a dog bite, shall meaning mandatory so statute specifically states that the owner of the dog IS liable, statute has shifted the burden of liability to the dog owner, statute also suggests that the owner of a premises is only liable for a dog bite when a trespasser is involved.

To hold me liable or partially liable would go against that as statute states liability is mandatory on the owner. Bar the dog owners defence of a wrongful or negligent act on my part which could potentially shift liability or partial liability to me then surely I can't be held liable under occupiers liability as liability for a dog bite is specifically provided for in statute unlike other acts which people can sue for under occupiers liability.

I would think that only a wrongful act or negligence on my part could make me liable uder occupiers liability, no?

Obviously the HC would have the power to interpret or redefine statute differently, but this is purely based on how it's currently written and the fact that occupiers liability and dog attacks cases have only dealth with treapassers AFAIK.

Peregrinus

The statement that the owner of the dog "shall" be liable has no bearing on the question of whether anybody else may also be liable. It's entirely possible that the owner of the dog could be liable under the Control of Dogs Act, and somebody else could be liable under ordinary principles of negligence, duty of care, occupier's liablity or whatever. To find that someone else is liable does not "go against" the strict liability of the owner, since the owner will still be liable. To succeed with that argument you'd have to persuade the court thaty the Control of Dogs Act provides that only the owner is liable, and I don't think it says that.

Kings Inns or bust

While there are some interesting theories in relation to the various heads of claim and impositions of liability I do wonder if in practice the net would be cast very wide indeed, with as many people as possible sued and as many alternative arguments forwarded?

nuac

Good discussion so far
Keep her lit

Peregrinus

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

While there are some interesting theories in relation to the various heads of claim and impositions of liability I do wonder if in practice the net would be cast very wide indeed, with as many people as possible sued and as many alternative arguments forwarded?

Of course it would. If you're going to launch proceedings at all, absolutely standard practice is to include every possible defendant, and let them argue among themselves about how any joint liability is to be allocated. If you're suing the owner of the dog, it doesn't greatly increase your costs to sue both the owner of the dog and the occupier of the premises and if the occupier is insured but the owner isn't (which is quite a likely state of affairs) it greatly improves your prospects of getting any money.

This rule applies generally, not just to dog bites. If you launch defamation proceedings, for example, it's standard to sue the author, the publisher, the distributor and the seller of whatever publication it is that you're complaining about.

whomitconcerns

So how does most of the rest of the would manage it? There are regularly dogs in pubs and cafes here in London

kidneyfan

whomitconcerns wrote: »

So how does most of the rest of the would manage it? There are regularly dogs in pubs and cafes here in London

work out the extra trade,
work out the cost of the extra insurance,
work out other costs involved in satisfying the extra trade,

That said I don't want a dog in a restaurant. They eat poo.

GM228

Plenty of dogs already allowed in restaurants and pubs etc here - namely guide/assistance dogs.

Obviously they are very highly trained and the chances of one biting or attacking are lower than other dogs but I wonder has there ever been an incidence involving one.