In recent years, with the continuous improvement of people's quality of life, pet ownership has become a part of many people's lives. Just looking at dog breeding, China's pet industry is *** showing,In 2022, the number of urban dogs in China was 51.19 million.
In recent years, incidents of dogs injuring people have occurred from time to time. Coordinating and unifying the happiness and safety of dog breeding is an important issue that needs to be solved in social governance, and it is also an important content that should be paid attention to in the construction of the rule of law.
On February 5, the Supreme People's Court issued a typical case of raising animals to cause damage to people, calling for civilized dog breeding and dog raising in accordance with regulations, strengthening the awareness of the responsibility of dog raising and dog breeding, and forming a dog breeding atmosphere and environment that strictly enforces the law and abides by the law.
Typical cases
It is forbidden to raise large dogs that injure people
The dog owner shall be fully responsible
Liu Moumou raised an Alaskan dog, which belongs to the large dogs that are prohibited from being raised in the built-up area of the city. 7-year-old Xu Moumou followed his grandmother Wang Moumou to play in the community, and met Liu Moumou leading the dog to travel. When Wang and Xu teased the dog, the dog suddenly scratched Xu's face. Xu Moumou was sent to the hospital by his family for treatment and hospitalization**. After that, the two parties failed to negotiate on compensation, and Xu Moumou filed a lawsuit, requesting Liu Moumou to compensate more than 30,000 yuan for medical expenses and other expenses.
The trial court held that animal keepers should bear a high management responsibility while having fun, and strictly abide by the relevant management regulations, so as to reduce the danger to the health and personal safety of others, create a safe living environment, and maintain social and public order. The Civil Code stipulates that if a dangerous animal such as a fierce dog that is prohibited from being raised causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability. This article states that the keeper or manager of dangerous animals such as fierce dogs that are prohibited from being kept shall bear the "strictest no-fault liability", and there is no excuse to invoke any exemption, and there is no right to defend the reduction or exemption of liability, and bear heavier legal liability. If a keeper or manager raises a fierce dog or other dangerous animal in violation of regulations, there is serious subjective fault, and the keeper or manager shall bear tort liability.
In this case, Liu Moumou raised itThe Alaskan dog belongs to the large dogs prohibited in the city, and the dog scratched Xu Moumou, although Xu Moumou was at fault for teasing the dog, it could not reduce Liu's responsibility. Xu Moumou should be compensated for the reasonable expenses incurred by Xu Moumou.
Termination of pregnancy after a pregnant woman is bitten by a dog
The keeper shall bear the relevant costs
An was bitten by a dog raised by Miao in the communityAn went to the hospital to inject the rabies vaccine, and Miao paid the vaccine fee. Later, An found out that she was pregnant when she was injected with the vaccine. In order to avoid fetal dysplasia, An chose to terminate the pregnancy after consulting with the hospital and other parties, and suffered great physical and mental pain. An believed that Miao failed to fulfill his duty of care for the dog he raised, resulting in himself being bitten, and there was a legal causal relationship between the rabies vaccine and the termination of pregnancy after being bitten by the dog. Therefore, An requested Miao to compensate for the expenses incurred in terminating the pregnancy. Miao believes that the injection of rabies vaccine does not necessarily lead to fetal development malformations, and Miao did not know about An's pregnancy, and An's termination of pregnancy after being injected with rabies vaccine should bear the consequences of damage. Due to the failure of the negotiation between the two parties, An filed a lawsuit.
The trial court held that Miao's dog had bitten An, and Miao could not prove that An had intentional or gross negligence, and Miao should be liable for all damages caused by An's bite. An was injected with rabies vaccine after being bitten by a dog, and was later found to be pregnantPregnancy termination surgery due to concerns that the vaccine will adversely affect the fetus is a normal behavior that is in line with An's living environment and ordinary people's medical cognitive abilityTherefore, reasonable expenses such as medical expenses, lost work expenses, nutrition expenses, transportation expenses, and solatium for mental injuries incurred due to the termination of pregnancy surgery claimed by An should be supported. The final judgment was that Miao compensated An for the loss of 6,069 yuan.
According to the Supreme People's Court, this case is a typical case in which a dog injures a person and has consequences derived from the termination of pregnancy. At present, although there is no medical conclusion on whether rabies vaccination affects fetal development, the "use with caution" in the instructions for vaccine use implies some adverse effects. At the same time, having a healthy child is the most basic expectation of parents, and finding out that the pregnancy is found and terminated after the rabies vaccine is in line with the normal cognition of ordinary people. When determining the causal relationship between rabies vaccination and termination of pregnancy after being bitten by a dog, in addition to relying on identification and medical conclusions, general social cognition and social ethics should also be consideredPay attention to the social value guidance of adjudication results. Therefore, there is a causal relationship under the tort liability law between the injection of vaccine and the termination of pregnancy after the dog causes damage to humans, and the damage caused by the termination of pregnancy is within the scope of the liability for damage caused by dogs, and the infringer should be compensated.
The dog chased the passer-by, causing him to be frightened and injured
"Contactless harm", the keeper is also responsible
When Zhang Moujia drove a battery car through a section of a villageThe big black dog raised by Zhang Mouyi chased the battery car, causing Zhang Moujia to fall down and injure his knee joint. After calling the police, the police from the police station arrived at the scene. After the coordination of the police, Zhang Mouyi's family sent Zhang Moujia to the hospital for hospitalization**. Later, it was identified that Zhang had a knee jointConstitutes a Grade 10 disability. Zhang Moujia filed a lawsuit, requesting Zhang MouB to compensate for various losses.
The trial court held that the danger of keeping animals does not refer only to injuries caused by direct physical contactCausing frightening to others is also one of the dangers. There is a causal relationship between the damage caused by the infringed party Zhang X A and the dog raised by the infringer Zhang X B that frightened the infringed party, and Zhang X B, as the keeper of the dog, failed to fulfill reasonable management obligations, and he could not prove that the infringed party Zhang X B had intent and should bear full liability for compensation. Final judgment: Zhang Mou B compensated Zhang Mou A for reasonable expenses 21126463 yuan.
The act of causing damage to a person by a dog is not limited to the act of biting, scratching, or other acts that come into direct contact with the human body. Dogs barking, sniffing, or chasing others in close proximity may cause panic in others under certain circumstances, resulting in corresponding physical harm. Even if the dog does not have direct physical contact with others, as long as there is a causal relationship with the consequences of the damage, it is also "the animal that raises causes damage to others", and the owner should still bear the corresponding responsibility. The handling of this case has a guiding role in the adjudication of pet "non-contact injury" cases. Keeping pets in daily life, the keeper or manager should improve the awareness of discipline, and the dog should be reasonably controlled and controlled when it is outside, and take responsibility for the health and safety of itself and others.
Illegal dog breeding,It should be denied and stopped
Wang Moumou runs a dry goods stall in a vegetable market, he raised 11 dogs without a license in the dry goods stall, and there was no leash. The local public security organ made a "Notice of Correction Order" to Wang, but Wang has not yet registered his dog. Later, after the police station received a report from the masses and learned about it, the police rushed to the scene to persuade Wang, but to no avail. The police took Wang Moumou to the police station to make a record of the questioning. At the same time, contact an animal rescue center to assist in capturing the illegal dogs at the scene and sending them to the local stray dog shelter. The public security organs made an "Administrative Punishment Decision" and decided to confiscate the 11 unlicensed dogs raised by Wang. Dissatisfied, Wang Moumou filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting that the "Administrative Penalty Decision" be revoked.
The trial court held that the local "Regulations on the Administration of Dog Breeding" stipulates that a registration system shall be implemented for dog breeding in key management areas. If the dog is not registered, no unit or individual shall raise it; Each household in the key management area is limited to one, and fierce dogs and large dogs are not allowed; Where an individual has more than one dog in each household, the public security organ shall criticize and educate them, and order them to make corrections within a time limit. If they do not change within the time limit, the number of dogs that exceed the limit shall be confiscated. Accordingly, the public security organs have the authority to investigate and deal with illegal dog breeding in their jurisdiction. In this case, Wang Moumou refused to make corrections after being ordered. Before the decision to punish the defendant was made, the public security organs confirmed through investigation that the facts of Wang's unlicensed dog breeding were clear and the evidence was sufficient. According to the above provisions, the public security organs decided to confiscate the unlicensed dog raised by Wang, and the laws and regulations were correctly applied, and the punishment range was not improper. After the public security organs handled the registration of the case, they performed procedures such as investigation and questioning, and notification and defense before punishment, in accordance with law, and the procedures were lawful. Final judgment: Wang's litigation claim was rejected.
In this case, based on the administrative trial, the people's court supported the administrative punishment imposed by the public security organs on the keepers who failed to fulfill their legal obligations to handle dog registration and failed to perform their duty of care, effectively avoiding the damage caused by the dogs involved in the case by unspecified groups of people in public places, and avoiding the occurrence of the vicious consequences of the dogs injuring people.
Civilized Beijing" reminds you.
Civilized and scientific dog breeding in accordance with the law.
Please comply with it together.
"Civilized Dog Breeding in Action Pet Manual".(Click to view).Be a qualified dog breeder.
end
*: Beijing Evening News.