Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hit a dog. Owner's control?
Options
-
23-04-2020 11:28pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Does that apply to beekeepers letting their animals out also?Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Totally irresponsible to allow an animal into the roadway.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
SuperSean11 wrote: »Owners fault unless you were on the path, check your car for damageToddDameron wrote: »Owner's fault unless you were driving illegally in some way. Wouldn't worry about it, the idiots should have been more careful. If you have any damage on your car, they have to pay for it.If the dogs on the road, then the dog owner should pay for the damage to your carIf the dog was not under control , then the owner is at fault. You are not required to stopThe onus is on the dog owner to keep the dog off the road. You have no liability. As said, they are actually liable for any damage done to your car by the dog being hit.
Ignore all the above, strict liability for an animals owner for damage caused only applies to cattle or in the case of a dog when there is an attack, it also depends on whether the animal is wild or domestic - the rules of scienter apply to domestic animals, strict liability for example does not apply to a domestic dog wandering onto the road unless there is a known mischievous propensity under the scienter principle.
The normal rules of negligence apply in a situation discussed in this thread as opposed to strict liability.
My understanding is that a motorist is supposed (maybe even required?) to notify the Gardaí if they hit a dog (or livestock) on the road. The purpose of this is that the Gardaí may decide to investigate and possibly prosecute the animal's owner.
You are required to stop if not a wild animal (S106 of the Road Traffic Act 1961), and depending on weather you take possession or control of the animal there may be further legal requirements such as taking reasonable steps to find the owner, not abandon them and take reasonable steps to reduce suffering.
Afaik, if you hit a cat, there is no such requirement.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Yep a cat is a wild animal.twowheelsonly wrote: »a cat is considered a wild animal.
Pet cats are treated as domestic animals as opposed to wild animals, this was held in the Buckle vs Holmes [1926] 2 KB 125 case, such cats are “protected animals” under S2 of the Animal Health Welfare Act 2013 and afforded the various protections under the Act as any other domestic animal.
Here’s an old post of mine from 4 years ago:-Little CuChulainn wrote: »It's damage to the ops property due to the reckless action of the neighbour. Seems to fall under the criminal damage act. I'm not aware of any case law to the contrary.
]A person is only reckless if they have foreseen that the particular kind of damage that in fact was done might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it. Can someone reasonably forsee their animal would kill another especially if the only previous indications the owner had was limited to incursions?
The legal test for recklessness is a subjective one. As per People vs Murray [1977] IR360, DPP vs McGrath, Cagney [2008] 2 IR 111 (SC) and summarised nicely per a UK House of Lords Case Regina vs G & another [2003] UKHL 50:-A person acts recklessly with respect to:
(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that exists or will exist;
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
and it is in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.
Can an owner of a dog be reckless if they weren't aware of a risk of their dog killing another animal? Would knowing your dog can escape your garden construde knowing your dog could harm another animal?
However it's really irrelevant as cases with animals and liability are based around negligence or strict liability and not recklessness. Negligence would not satisfy the legal test of recklessness required for criminal damage.
Strict liability for a dogs actions come into play only when another person or livestock are injured or killed, but when other animals not defined under livestock (or property) are injured, damaged or killed the rules of scienter come into play (the dog owners previous knowledge of the cause which led to the damage complained of, or rather their previous knowledge of a state of facts which it was their duty to guard against and their omission to do which has led to the injury complained of).
Liability will also depend on if an animal is wild or domestic. Owners of wild animals have strict liability whilst owners of domestic animals are only liable if it is shown the animal had vicious, mischievous or fierce propensity ([iPFitzgerald vs ED & AD Cooke Bourne Farms [1964] 1 QB 249, 270[/i]), based on the principle or scienter. Cats and dogs have previously been ruled to be domestic animals in any case law.
Scienter must be alleged by a plaintiff in the case of a domestic animal (Kelly vs Wade [1848] 12 ILR 424), and that a prior knowledge of scienter by the owner of the animal must be evident (Quinn vs Quinn 39 ILTR 163 and Howard vs Bergin O'Connor and Co. [1925] 2 IR 110. 118) before the owner is liable. In other words the dog must have shown the same propensity previously, hence the "every dog gets one bite" saying.
Evidence of a prior vicious, mischievous or fierce propensity must be specific and not general. It must relate to the specific animal and not the general characteristics of the breed and the particular damage alleged. Hence why someone may not be liable for a dog killing an animal when they have a prior knowledge of it escaping as escape and killing are not the same propensity. (Glanville L. Williams, Liability for Animals).
Even when there is proof of scienter an owner is not liable when the act is provoked (Andrew vs Kilgour [1910] 13 WLR 608, 19 Man LR 545). I wonder could a cat sitting on a shed roof be considered provocation under the rule? I have a number of cats and I'm convinced they just sit on the roof of my shes laughing and taunting my neighbours dogs!
Contributory negligence can also reduce or omit liability of the owner I would imagine. Could someone allowing their cats outside on a shed when they know a dog can easily jump a 5ft wall and kill their cat be negligent for allowing it be in the position to be killed in the first place?
Little CuChulainn wrote: »Dangerous dog not under control. Statute doesn't say it has to be outside the home. In any case, if it managed to get a cat in the neighbours garden it could not have remained within the boundaries of the home.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/32/section/22/enacted/en/html#sec22
Dog wardens don't have powers under Section 22 as it carries no offences. S22 applies to dangerous dogs which are not under proper control, however under Section 9 (1)(a) control of dogs does not apply to the premises of the owner. The provisions of S22 are applied by the District Court, not dog wardens. Anybody can complain to a court for it's application.Control of dogs
9.—(1) The owner or any other person in charge of a dog shall not permit the dog to be in any place other than—
(a) the premises of the owner, or
(b) the premises of such other person in charge of the dog, or
(c) the premises of any other person, with the consent of that person,
unless such owner or such other person in charge of the dog accompanies it and keeps it under effectual control.
(2) If a dog worries livestock, the owner or any other person in charge of the dog shall be guilty of an offence unless it is established that at the material time the dog worried the livestock for the purpose of removing trespassing livestock and that having regard to all the circumstances the action was reasonable and necessary.
If S22 is used in relation to an attack of a dog it only applies when a dog attacks a person or livestock as per S22 (5) and cats for example don't fall into the definition of livestock.
Another issue is "dangerous dogs" is not defined in law here (unlike in the UK) and it would be up to a court to decide if a dog is dangerous or otherwise. As another poster has stated the act of killing a cat or even incursions may not constitute "dangerous".
Also we don't know if on this occasion the dog actually left the neighbours garden or did it simply jump high enough to catch the cat, as the OP stated it jumped and killed on it's own side of the fence, was the cat hanging over from the shed etc.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement