Zhao has two loyal wolf dogs at home, and because he often goes out, he entrusts these two dogs to take care of his home and care for him. However, one night, when Zhao was on a business trip, he accidentally received a neighbor's ** - his dog, which actually bit a person to death. This person's name is Tian, and he is a thief with ill intentions. It turned out that Tian tried to poison the two dogs that night and sneaked into Zhao's house to commit theft. But he didn't expect that the dog's resistance was beyond his imagination, not only was he not poisoned, but when he tried to enter Zhao's house, he pounced on him, causing Tian to die unfortunately. Tian's family was grief-stricken, believing that Zhao's behavior of raising a dog was the direct cause of Tian's death. As a result, a complaint sued Zhao in court, demanding that he compensate for various losses totaling 660,000 yuan.
The court held that according to the relevant provisions of China's Civil Code, the keeper of an animal that fails to take safety measures for the animal and causes damage to others shall be liable. In other words, the issue of the responsibility of the keeper should be specifically analyzed whether the keeper has taken appropriate safety measures. In this case, the keeper kept the dog in a closed house in his own home, and even if the keeper did not keep the dog on a leash at home, it was enough to prevent the dog from going out and hurting people. The door lock of the house is a safety measure for the dog, and the owner of the dog has actually fulfilled the basic obligation to take safety measures. Because Tian broke into Zhao's house in order to commit theft, it has constituted the crime of theft, and the theft led to his own death, and Tian should be held responsible. Therefore, the court found that Tian's death was an accident and Zhao did not have to bear any legal responsibility. Tian did not follow the right path, suffered by himself, and took the blame on himself.
February** Dynamic Incentive Program