Stray animals hurt people, abandoners and feeders are responsible

Stray animals hurt people, abandon and feed, and those who are responsible for feeding

Through three typical cases, the Fangshan Court clarified the responsibilities of all parties such as abandoned owners and feeders after stray or wild animals injured people

After being abandoned, stray pets began to wander on the edge of people's lives, and while they came into people's field of vision to attract attention, some incidents of property damage and even personal injury caused by them were also increasing.

How to determine the person liable for compensation when stray animals cause damage to people? Who is responsible for harmful behavior of protected wildlife? The Beijing News reporter learned from the Fangshan District People's Court in Beijing that the Fangshan Court found through investigation that there are many stray animals and wild animals in real life that cannot find the responsible person or manager, and their increase not only brings a large number of environmental health problems, but also threatens the personal safety of residents to a certain extent.

Through three typical cases, the court clarified the responsibilities of abandoners, feeders and even the government after stray or wild animals hurt people.

Case 1

Stray dog bites the original owner bears all medical expenses

Among the many stray animals, some are "furry children" who were abandoned by their original owners and left homeless.

Recently, in a dispute case concluded by the Fangshan Court concerning damage caused by stray animals, the defendant Wang purchased a pet Shiba Inu two years ago, because Shiba Inu often barked at night, Wang's neighborhood relations were affected, and Wang decided to "give it away".

After half a year, Shiba Inu returned to wander near the community where Wang lived. Early one morning, a stray Shiba Inu bit Zhang, who was walking in the community, and Zhang spent more than 600 yuan on medical expenses. Later, Zhang sued Wang, the original owner of Shiba Inu, to the court, demanding compensation for various losses.

During the trial, Wang claimed that Shiba Inu did indeed belong to him personally, but he had already given it away, and now Shiba Inu has nothing to do with him and should not be liable for compensation. However, Wang did not provide the court with any information about the current owner of Shiba Inu.

After hearing, the court held that animal keepers or managers should have relatively strict management and control obligations for the animals they raise and manage, and should take appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of animal infringement. In this case, Wang, the original breeder of Shiba Inu, failed to take necessary control measures and make proper arrangements for the animals raised, and the name "giving away" was actually abandoned, resulting in the animals being out of control and causing human injury. If the abandoned animal causes damage to others during the abandonment period, the original keeper or manager of the animal shall bear tort liability. In the end, the court ordered Wang to compensate Zhang for all medical expenses.

The court introduced that for the tort arising from such circumstances, whether the keeper or manager subjectively voluntarily renounces possession of the animal or passively loses possession of the animal, as long as the animal objectively leaves the control of the keeper or manager and causes damage to others, the original keeper or manager should bear the tort liability.

Case 2

Scratched by a stray cat while walking the dog The dog owner's claim against the feeder was upheld

In another case of injury caused by stray animals concluded by the court, when the plaintiff Zhao was walking his dog, a stray cat fought with Zhao's dog and scratched Zhao. Zhao believed that Liu in the same community often fed stray cats, and the stray cat had been actually adopted by Liu, and Liu had become the owner of the cat, so he sued the court and demanded that Liu compensate him for medical losses of more than 1500,<> yuan.

During the trial, the court played the surveillance video at the time of the incident. The video shows that the place of the incident is located in a public passage in front of Liu's house. Zhao walked his dog without a leash, and when passing by the place of the incident, the dog Zhao walked had a fight with a cat, and then Zhao kicked the cat away between the two animals in order to protect his dog, and Zhao was scratched by the cat in the process.

The court held that the characteristics of stray cats are ownerless and long-term outdoor survival, and Liu's feeding behavior is based on the psychology of helping animals, even if long-term feeding, it cannot constitute ownership or possession in the legal sense, nor does it have control over stray animals. However, Liu's long-term feeding of stray cats has formed a fixed place for stray cats to obtain food in the public environment of the community where he lives, resulting in the gathering of stray cats and bringing danger to the public environment of the community. In the absence of appropriate measures, the act is an unreasonable interference impact on the common interest of the public, and there is a causal link between this dangerous impact and Zhao's injury, and Liu should bear the corresponding responsibility.

At the same time, Zhao did not leash the dog he raised during the process of walking the dog, and the behavior he took during the cat and dog bite was also inappropriate. Therefore, Zhao was also at fault for the harm he had suffered. In the end, the court found that both parties bore equal responsibility, and Liu needed to compensate Zhao for half of the loss of medical expenses.

The court reminded that according to Article 1245 of the Civil Code, if the raised animal causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability; However, if it can be proved that the damage was caused by the infringed party's intention or gross negligence, the liability may not be borne or mitigated. In cases where the keeper or manager cannot be determined, the victim needs to bear a heavier burden of proof to determine the obligor for compensation. In addition, from the registration of pets to the rescue and management of stray animals, it is inseparable from the guidance and coordination of government departments, and the government and relevant departments should shoulder their responsibilities.

Case 3

The park was hit by a wild boar during morning exercise, and the court sentenced the local government to compensate

In addition to the common stray animals around us, there are some natural wanderers who often break into human activity areas and cause injuries, such as: wild boars, Asian elephants, golden eagles, etc. If not properly addressed, these wildlife hazards may affect public participation and support for biodiversity conservation.

In order to effectively solve such problems, the Wildlife Protection Law formulated in 1988 established a compensation system for wildlife damage, which has been revised and improved many times. According to Article 2022 of the Wildlife Protection Law (revised in 19), "the local people's government shall compensate for the loss of casualties or crops or other property caused by the protection of wild animals protected under this Law." According to the provision, "specific measures shall be formulated by the people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government."

So far, more than 10 provinces and cities, including Beijing, Yunnan and Zhejiang, have formulated provincial-level wildlife damage compensation rules. For example, Article 21 of the Beijing Municipal Regulations on the Protection and Management of Wild Animals promulgated by Beijing Municipality clearly stipulates that "the district people's government shall compensate for personal injury, death or loss of crops or other property caused by the protection of wild animals included in the list." ”

In a recent case heard by the Fangshan Court, the plaintiff Lin was unfortunately hit by a wild boar while exercising in the morning in Park Square. After the masses called the police, Lin was sent to the hospital for hospitalization. Diagnosed by the hospital, Lin's left pubic fracture, severe osteoporosis, head trauma, etc. Later, Lin sued a government to the court for economic compensation.

After hearing, the court held that because the wild boar is currently included in the list of terrestrial wild animals protected by the State as beneficial or of important economic and scientific research value, it belongs to the protected wild animals stipulated in Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Wildlife Protection Law. In this case, Lin was injured by a wild boar, and the provisions of Article 19 of the Wildlife Protection Law should be applied, and the local people's government should compensate. In the end, the court ordered the local people's government to pay 2,3 yuan in compensation to the plaintiff Lin.

The court reminded that when protected wild animals cause property damage to the people, they can first seek compensation from the local government. If a dispute arises between the local resident and the government over the amount of compensation, the injured resident can also file an administrative compensation lawsuit in the people's court.

Beijing News reporter Bo Qiyu