A dog hit an electric scooter, causing the cyclist to fall. The owner of the dog denies this. Can the cyclist still receive compensation? Recently, the Rugao City People's Court heard this infringement dispute case and finally ruled that the dog owner should compensate 150,000 yuan for various losses in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code.
One day not long ago, Ms. Yu, who lives in Baipu Town, Rugao, Nantong, was riding an electric scooter to work. Suddenly, a black dog jumped out of the road and got into the front wheel of Ms. Yu's electric scooter, causing her to fall. Ms. Yu was sent to the hospital for treatment, which cost tens of thousands of yuan in medical expenses. It was determined that she had a tenth-level disability.
After the incident, the Traffic Patrol Brigade conducted an investigation and determined that Ms. Yu was not responsible and found out that the dog was raised by Zhang’s family. Ms. Yu sued Zhang, requiring the other party to compensate for medical expenses, lost wages, disability compensation, etc., totaling more than 150,000 yuan. Zhang claimed that his dog did not hit Ms. Yu at all, and the traffic police department did not find him responsible and refused to compensate.
The Rugao court held that the traffic accident certificate and the police record proved that the cause of the accident was that the dog hit the woman and caused her injury, and Ms. Yu did not bear responsibility. This case is a dispute over injuries caused by raising animals. According to legal provisions, the owner, Zhang, should bear the liability for compensation. Zhang was dissatisfied with the accident result determined by the traffic police department, but he did not apply for review and had no evidence to prove his claim. Accordingly, the court supported Ms. Yu’s claim.
According to the judge, Article 1245 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates that if a raised animal causes damage to another person, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability; however, if it can be proven that the damage was caused intentionally or by gross negligence of the infringed party, the liability may be waived or reduced. Article 1246 stipulates that if management regulations are violated and safety measures are not taken for animals that cause damage to others, the animal breeder or manager shall bear tort liability; however, liability may be reduced if it can be proven that the damage was intentionally caused by the person being infringed. In this case, Zhang did not prove that the damage was caused by Ms. Yu’s intention or gross negligence, so her liability cannot be exempted or reduced.
Source: Ziniu News