Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

mariette asselbergs — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:05:09 GMT

I don't know if this is widely known but as a member of the Dog Trust all your dogs are insured automatically for 3rd party liability. I always think that nurse talks with new puppy owners should discuss this. A dog can easily run into a road and cause terrible damage, or chew somebody's valuables, or start attacking other dogs \(there is always a first time, not all dog attacks are by repeat offenders).

Mariette

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:29:39 GMT

Perhaps I'm the one who didn't make myself clear.

Wynne

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Francisco Gomez — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:38:21 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

If the other owner's dog was guilty-it's only fair that they, not the innocentinsurence company shareholders should bear the financial cost

Wynne

[/quote] Sorry Wynne, I didn't realise that the owners of the attacker dog didn't have insurance. They didn't acknowledge having a 'risk' dog and therefore I agree the insurance of the victim dog shouldn't pay the burden. I stand by the rest of my posts but I apologise for putting your reasoning at doubt.

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Francisco Gomez — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:00:55 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

What kind of moustache are you going for, Francisco? Stalin had a cracker.

[/quote]

The two male nurses and I are doing the 'moustache' thing. I learnt something important: It is not that they always shave before coming to work, it's that it takes them ages to grow any facial hair!

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:57:35 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]... A lefty like me, and defending people's use of insurance I never knew I could get this far... next I'll be voting torys![/quote]

What kind of moustache are you going for, Francisco? Stalin had a cracker.

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Francisco Gomez — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:52:53 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Actually yes-it would lead to more responsible driving, lower insurence premiums, and save lives-both human and animal.

Wynne

[/quote]

I don't want to sound patronising. But insurance are just for that: Most people don't want to have a car accident collision, have their homes flooded or have their pets biting other dogs. Nobody wants to hear from their insurers 'You should have been more careful, should have trained your dog better or have your house built somewhere else'. You take out an insurance because you know that there is a risk.

People pay insurance because they have already acknowledged that the risk exists. That is, in my mind, sufficient to use the insurance. Or are you paying insurance only to buy someone else a pension?

... A lefty like me, and defending people's use of insurance I never knew I could get this far... next I'll be voting torys!

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:51:42 GMT

Increase the penalty for hit and run to a minimum of 10x the cost of repairs.It would be easy to totallyeradicate all crime-if we had the guts to really hurt criminals

Wynne

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Marie Kubiak — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:26:37 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Actually yes-it would lead to more responsible driving, lower insurence premiums, and save lives-both human and animal.

Wynne

[/quote]

I'm pretty sure you'd just end up with more hit and run incidents if you significantly raise the punishment for facing up to the mistake and keep the penalties the same for fleeing the scene.

Back to the animal scenario - if the owner of the 'attacker' is not actually legally responsible for the vet bills then what's the justification for saying that submitting an insurance claim for costs is fraud? I would consider that a perfectly reasonable course of action.

Marie

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:17:08 GMT

Actually yes-it would lead to more responsible driving, lower insurence premiums, and save lives-both human and animal.

Wynne

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Francisco Gomez — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:07:57 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

If the other owner's dog was guilty-it's only fair that they, not the innocentinsurence company shareholders should bear the financial cost

Wynne

[/quote]

Are you saying that if you had a car collision and it is your fault: You, not the 'innocentinsurence company shareholders' should bear the repairs of both cars?

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:53:29 GMT

If the other owner's dog was guilty-it's only fair that they, not the innocentinsurence company shareholders should bear the financial cost

Wynne

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:41:37 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Gillian Whether or not the victim dog was insured is totally irrelevant. If it was the innocent party then the attacker's owners should pay . It's that sort of "reasoning" that causes insurence inflation-which then puts people off insuring. Anyway,insurence fraud isn't a victimless crime-it hurts all those self-employed people who have the sense to invest in pension plans.[/quote]

It isn't insurance fraud Wynne -and who paid for the treatment was not my decision- I just didn't like their attitude of hiding the dog's insurance status. The other dog's owner could have just paid the excess for them.

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:33:44 GMT

Gillian Whether or not the victim dog was insured is totally irrelevant. If it was the innocent party then the attacker's owners should pay . It's that sort of "reasoning" that causes insurence inflation-which then puts people off insuring. Anyway,insurence fraud isn't a victimless crime-it hurts all those self-employed people who have the sense to invest in pension plans.

The worst case I ever saw was a little Yorkie. It should have been safe in it's own garden-the gate was closed and the wall far too high for it to jump over. A GSD jumped over the wall and attacked it. Massive tear in chest wall-lungs visible. I did the 2nd half of a thoracotomy-the closing upbit-and fortunately it lived.

The worst thing is that since the law regards animals as merely chatels, not sentient beings, the owner of the Yorkie could only force the owner of the GSD to pay the purchase price of the Yorkie, not the cost of the surgery.

Wynne

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Bob Russell — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:21:44 GMT

It is an owners responsibility to keep their dog under control. If they have failed to do so they are potentially liable for any actions of the dog. Whether this is likely to be enforced is a different matter.

Our local Police are pretty disinterested in dog against dog aggression but we have pretty good local dog wardens who do their best within their limited powers.

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Dagmar Steele — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:35:22 GMT

In my country most owners would have liability insurance (in some counties they have to) which would take over the whole thing and even go to court over it if they think they don't have to pay. Usually the owners of the one that's off the lead are considered to be responsible. This may be utter nonsense when it comes to common sense but then how many laws go along wit common sense ?

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:28:44 GMT

We had a client take out a civil action against someone whose dog attacked theirs, and the owner refused to pay their bill. We wrote a witness statement regarding the dog's injuries- but I never did find out what the result was. (Must ask next time they come in....) I'd guess that if a person isn't involved, a civil action is the only way to claim back costs. Thus it will be up to the judge/magistrate to decide ..??????

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Stephen Courtney — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:24:41 GMT

It doesn't matter how the owner got bitten - it should have made the police act. If people know their rights and make a fuss they tend to get results. unfortunately it seems your clients are the old fashioned ' mustn't make a fuss' kind of folk. If your dog bites a human being in a public area, you should be in serious trouble. the police were derelict in their duty.

Normally i hate people who moan and fuss, but i hate idle, lazy and incompetent public servants even more.

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Utlendigur — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:20:09 GMT

[quote user="Stephen Courtney"]The police were wrong in that case because a human being was also injured. [/quote]

I think their reasoning (excuse?) was the rottie attacked the collie, not the owner - the owner only got bitten because he tried to intervene.

[quote user="Stephen Courtney"]probably had a speed trap to set up in the middle of nowhere[/quote]

North Wales - say no more (mind you I haven't seen the infamous horsebox for a while)

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Joyce Whitehead — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:24:53 GMT

Yes we had a case a year or so ago where a male adult rottie had escaped from his back garden and attacked a Yorkie being walked outside. The Yorkie died of his injuries. The police were called, attended, and followed the rottie owners to the surgery whilst their dog was put to sleep (this was the decision of the rottie owners, he had attacked before). They also took photos and a brief statement from us in case further action was taken (which it wasn't). The rottie was lovely with people but a terror with other dogs unfortunately.

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Stephen Courtney — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:14:03 GMT

[quote user="Utlendigur"]

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]I recall a similar case where one dog killed a smaller one that was off the lead. If it's dog on dog, AFAIK there's no criminal case to answer and police usually aren't interested.[/quote]

We had a case a few months ago - elderly couple walking their oldish collie on a lead. Their dog was attacked (unprovoked) by a rottie running loose on the road. The collie was so badly injured she was pts, the male owner was bitten and an ambulance was called. The police, also called, said they couldn't (ie wouldn't) take it further because it was a dog that was attacked. What about the fact that the dog was dangerously out control in a public place?

[/quote]

The police were wrong in that case because a human being was also injured. Bottom line is some cops are lazy and can't be bothered - probably had a speed trap to set up in the middle of nowhere or a Tory politician to tell lies about. Or they were scared of the owner and his Rottie. Probably a health 'n safety issue there...

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Utlendigur — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:52:29 GMT

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:51:58 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

Owners WILL know if their own dog is prone to attacking and causing damage (beyond a small bite) - and should take precautions to prevent it.

[/quote] True, but we are talking about legalities: What you say is right IMO, but not necessarily what the law says...

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

David Mills — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:42:18 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]

I recall a similar case where one dog killed a smaller one that was off the lead. If it's dog on dog, AFAIK there's no criminal case to answer and police usually aren't interested. The owers who have suffered the loss could bring a civil action if they want.

[/quote]

This is true. The only action available normally is to sue for damage for property.

It's not been tested as far as I know, but a premeditated, intentional attack by someone's dog on someone else's may come under criminal damage to someone else's property but it'd be pretty difficult to prove I think.

Re the OP, tough to say as you weren't there. Some dogs do launch unprovoked attacks, and most owners should know that so I'm with Mrs M on this one.

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:38:10 GMT

All I know is that if my dog was minding its own business, and another dog came up and chewed it, I'd want the other owner's dog to pay any costs... whatever they were. There is a world of difference between a normal dog:dog scrap, and totally unprovoked and excessive aggression. Owners WILL know if their own dog is prone to attacking and causing damage (beyond a small bite) - and should take precautions to prevent it.

The exception may be something that came up at our practice.... an INSURED dog was injured but the owners still wanted the other dog's owners to pay, rather than put in a claim, to 'teach them a lesson'. I wasn't happy with that idea.

Re: Extent of owners liability in dog on dog attacks

Robin Grimmer — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:35:29 GMT