Civil Code: Pets must be held accountable for hurting others (Lawyer Online)
News replay
On August 18, 2020, a video of an old man dying after being tripped on a dog leash was circulated on the Internet.
That night, the official Weibo of Xingtan Town, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province issued a "Circular Notice", saying that after investigation, Luoshui villager Luo (female, 12 years old) brought out another villager Luo's dog that was tied to his door to play. When passing the Luoshui market, the dog broke free from the restraint rope. During the run, the dog rope accidentally tripped the villager Mai (female, 88 years old) of the village, causing Mai to be injured and died after being sent to the hospital without treatment.
It was preliminarily judged that the incident was an accident.
The aftermath work is currently being carried out in an orderly manner.
After the incident, people couldn't help but worry, if this was an accident, would anyone be responsible for the death of the old man Mai?
Can she get the compensation she deserves?
Should the little girl Luo and the dog owner Luo take responsibility?
[Legal Interpretation]
The old man tripped on a dog leash and died. Should the girl who led the dog bear criminal responsibility?
The author believes that in this case, whether it is the dog owner, the little girl, or the little girl’s parents, there is no subjective intention or negligence in the criminal law for the death of the old man.
According to the principle of accountability consistent with the subjective and objective of the criminal law, criminal responsibility should not be assumed in accordance with the law.
Moreover, the little girl is only 12 years old. According to the criminal law, she is a person with no capacity for criminal responsibility. Even if the serious consequences that should be convicted are caused, she does not have to bear criminal responsibility in accordance with the law.
Who should bear civil liability?
Although there is no need to bear legal liability in criminal matters, the author believes that in the civil field, dog owners and girls’ parents should still bear civil liability for compensation.
Regarding the situation in which animals raised cause injuries or death to others, Article 1245 of the Civil Code stipulates that "If the animals raised cause damage to others, the animal breeder or manager shall bear the tort liability; however, the damage can be proved If it is caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the infringed party, the liability may not be assumed or reduced."
It is not difficult to see from the law that when the animal raised infringes the lawful rights and interests of others, the animal breeder or manager shall bear the tort liability, which is a kind of no-fault liability.
First of all, although the dog that tripped the old man was not brought out by the dog owner himself, the dog owner, as an animal breeder, has the obligation to manage and control the animal. From the current disclosure of the case, it can be seen that the dog was taken by the girl. The dog owner brought it out to play.
In this regard, is the dog owner aware of the girl's dog-leashing behavior?
If you don’t know, is there a certain degree of closure for the dog owner to leash the dog?
These are all reasons that affect the dog owner's liability for infringement.
Secondly, the girl brought out the dog that the owner of the dog kept at the door of the house. In fact, she has become the dog manager in the legal sense and has the legal obligation to control the dog. However, the girl obviously did not take sufficient safety restraint measures to bring the dog. Entering a public place, he did not play a prudent duty of care to hold the dog leash, causing the dog to escape and trip over the elderly.
According to the provisions of Article 1246 of the Civil Code, “If the animal keeper or manager is liable for tort due to violation of management regulations by failing to take safety measures on animals and causing damage to others; however, it can be proved that the damage is If it is caused deliberately by the infringed, the liability can be mitigated."
Objectively, girls should bear legal responsibility for the damage caused by the death of the elderly.
It should be noted that the dog-catching girl in this case is only 12 years old and belongs to a person with limited civil capacity according to law. According to Article 1188 of the "Civil Code", "a person with no civil capacity or a person with limited civil capacity caused others In case of damage, the guardian shall bear the tort liability", "If a person with property without civil capacity or a person with limited civil capacity causes damage to others, the compensation shall be paid from his own property; the guardian shall compensate for the deficiency." In this case The girl with the dog is not directly liable for tort, but her parents are liable. However, if the little girl owns property, she can pay compensation from her own property; the insufficient part still needs to be compensated by her parents.
Once again, from the scene monitoring screen, it can be seen that the accidentally killed old man was not on the sidewalk on the side of the road, but close to the middle of the road when she tripped. She may also be at fault for the danger.
According to Article 1173 of the Civil Code, “Where the infringee is at fault for the occurrence or expansion of the same damage, the liability of the infringer may be reduced.”
If the elderly are at fault, the elderly themselves may also have to bear certain responsibilities.
For this judgment, more accurate evidence is needed to confirm it.
Finally, it can be seen from the scene monitoring pictures that the "perpetrator" (big dog with a dog leash) in this case tripped the old man while chasing another unled and cordless puppy.
According to Article 1250 of the Civil Code, “If the animal causes damage to another person due to the fault of a third person, the infringed person may request compensation from the animal breeder or manager, or from a third person. The animal breeder or manager has the right to claim compensation from a third party after making compensation." The owner of the puppy did not lead the leash and caused the puppy and the big dog to chase and trip over others. For the accident, there is a fault, and it should be within the scope of the fault. Responsibility within.
If the puppy is a stray dog, in accordance with Article 1249 of the Civil Code, "If an abandoned or escaped animal causes damage to others during the abandonment or escape, the original owner or manager of the animal shall bear the infringement. Responsibility", the original owner of the puppy should still bear responsibility within the scope of his fault.
[Attorney reminded]
With the continuous development of the economy and society and the continuous improvement of people's living standards, raising animals has become a more common way to improve the quality of spiritual life.
At the same time, in recent years, the phenomenon of human damage caused by animal breeding has occurred frequently, and it has gradually become a more prominent social problem. Related tragedies often occur, which are all regrettable.
In this regard, the lawyer reminds you: each of us should take care of our pets, regulate our own animal raising behaviors, abide by the regulations of raising animals in the city where we live, do not raise strong dogs that are forbidden to raise, and actively cooperate with relevant departments to register pets , Epidemic prevention and other measures, when going out, leash and wear muzzles for pets to avoid unnecessary impact on other people’s lives.
Guardians of minors must also actively perform their guardianship obligations, lead by example, manage and educate their children well, and establish correct social values for them. Animal breeding should abide by laws and regulations, respect social ethics, and must not hinder the lives of others.
(Zhu Zheng, Director of Beijing Jingshi (Hefei) Law Firm)