On February 5, the Supreme People's Court released the relevant content of the typical case on liability for damage caused by raising animals, which mentions the provisions on the tort liability of keepers or managers of dangerous animals such as fierce dogs that are prohibited from being raised. This move has aroused widespread concern and heated discussions among the public, and has also aroused discussions from all walks of life on the rationality of animal feeding responsibilities and legal provisions.
According to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the keeper or manager of the animal shall bear tort liability for the damage caused to others by dangerous animals such as fierce dogs that are prohibited from being raised. More explicitly, it is stipulated that the assumption of these liabilities should be regarded as "the strictest no-fault liability", and that there is no excuse to invoke and no defence to reduce or exempt liability. This means that the keeper or manager of this type of dangerous animal will bear a greater legal responsibility in the event of damage.
Such a provision has aroused widespread concern and discussion in society. On the one hand, this provision reflects the protection of public safety and individual rights and interests, and by strengthening the provisions on the responsibility of raising dangerous animals, it can enhance the society's awareness of safety and security, reduce safety risks, and reduce the risk of harm to the public and others. On the other hand, it also reflects the legislative intent of the law to consider the balance and reasonableness of responsibility, so as to protect the interests of victims.
However, this provision has also raised some controversy and questions. Some people believe that the imposition of "the strictest no-fault liability" for keepers or managers of dangerous animals such as fierce dogs that are prohibited from being kept may infringe on their reasonable rights and interests, and there may be certain limitations in their liability. In addition, there may also be a certain amount of room for justification and reasonableness with respect to the relevant exemption grounds and the right to reduce liability, and it is necessary to consider their reasonableness in the specific application of the law.
At the level of social governance and legal norms, the provisions and application of the responsibility for raising dangerous animals need to fully respect the perfection and flexibility of the law, and comprehensively consider the principles of public safety, individual rights and interests and responsibilities. At the same time, it is also necessary to refine and concretize the relevant feeding regulations, fully consider the interests of all parties, and achieve an appropriate balance and application between ensuring public safety, safeguarding individual rights and interests, and balancing rights and responsibilities. In this way, the comprehensive goals of public safety, social harmony and fairness and justice under the law can be achieved.