On 01/12/2023 15:46, Simon Parker wrote:
On 30/11/2023 23:11, Jimzzr wrote:
Hi,
My cat was recently injured and subsequently died from an attack by a
Staffordshire Bull Terrier that had escaped from a back garden in the
next street via a gate that was either not locked or became unlocked in
the next street. My cat was in a neighbours front garden where he
normally roams (these front gardens are open plan with no fencing either between houses or the street).
The dog was clearly not under the owners control and I would suggest
negligent in not ensuring the gate was secure.
Do I have a good civil case for damages (ca £2k vet bills) in this
situation. As far as I can tell there is no criminal offence. I pulled
the dog off but it did not attempt to bite me so I guess there is no
criminal offence? Obviously I need to prove it was their dog, but is
there anything else?
Thanks
Jim
First and foremost, my sincerest condolences on the loss of your cat -
this must be both distressing and frustrating for you.
Rather than listening to advice from random strangers on the Internet, I would recommend that you read the NPCC's guidance issued to the police
for "Dealing with Dogs" as this will provide you with an excellent understanding of how the police deal with these matters, so you know
what to expect should you decide to report the matter to the police.
You can download a copy of the NPCC's "Dealing with Dogs" document here:
https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/disclosure-logs/operations-coordination-committee/2023/march/057-2023-dealing-with-dd-guidance-notes-for-police_redacted.pdf
Similarly, you can read the CPS' guidance on the prosecution of offences involving dangerous dogs here:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dangerous-dog-offences
Unfortunately, I must disagree with the advice proffered elsewhere in
the thread by poster Norman Wells as his interpretation of your
circumstances seems to have neglected to take into account the effect of
case law that applies in these circumstances, namely, Sansom v Chief Constable of Kent (1981) (You can read the case in full here: https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/sansom.pdf)
Summarising the case, Ms Sansom's dog, of previous good character, got
into the garden of her next door neighbour, Mr Barnes, who kept tame
rabbits in hutches. The dog opened one of the hutches and killed two
white rabbits in the hutch. The matter before the court was did this
course of events make the dog a "dangerous dog", with all the legal implications thereof?
The court's answer was, unfortunately for you, no it did not. This was
a single isolated incident and, (N.B. the following phrase is used a lot
when referring to the case), "it is in the very nature of dogs to chase, wound and kill other little animals."
Another quote from the Sansom case is: "I have very great sympathy with
Mr. Barnes in the loss of his tame rabbits, but I would consider it to
be straining language too far to attach for that one incident the
permanent label of "dangerous" to this dog. In my view, as I said at the beginning, he was on this occasion a bad dog and dogs are apt to be bad."
That was, however, a case brought under the Dogs Act 1871, and decided
before the enactment of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which is now more relevant. For a successful prosecution, the earlier Act required the
dog to be classified as a 'dangerous dog', whereas the later Act applies
to all dogs and requires just that the dog be 'dangerously out of control'.
In the case cited by Mr Parker, the dog (an Eskimo Sled dog) was not
deemed a dangerous dog so the case failed under the 1871 Act. It was
not decided, because that was not relevant under that law, whether the
dog was 'dangerously out of control', which is a different, but now the current, consideration.
Section 10(3) of the 1991 Act says:
"For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out
of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person or assistance dog, whether
or not it actually does so".
The OP says that the dog did not attempt to bite him, but I think he may
well have had grounds for reasonable apprehension that it would. I
think most of us confronted by a bull terrier of any description that
had just killed a cat and that he had to pull off would.
So, in my view, there is a sustainable case for prosecution under the
1991 Act.
In short, a single incident of a dog killing an animal smaller than
itself is unlikely to attract the attention of the police and it would,
I suggest, be difficult in the extreme to sue successfully the owner for
a criminal offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
You asked about the possibility of launching a civil suit against the
owner for the cost of your vet's bill and this is possible, but by no
means certain. (In the Sansom case, the court gave consideration to Mr Barnes suing or endeavouring to sue Ms Sansom and the conclusion was
that Mr Barnes "would never get his claim on its feet.") However, teach case turns on it own facts and merit so this may not apply in your case.
It's a great pity that the Sansom judge did not explain why, despite his apparent certainty, a civil case would not get off the ground. I would
have thought from first principles that a duty of care applies between
dog owners and the public, and this seems to confirm it:
"If you own pets, livestock, or other animals you may be liable for any
damage they commit. If you keep any animal, you have a duty of care to
prevent them from causing harm. If you fail to do so, you can be exposed
to civil liability with anyone who has been harmed being able to take
action against you for any loss or injury. This is consistent with wider
tort law with you as the owner being liable reflecting the fact that
making an animal a defendant is not exactly a viable option.
Here there is an established duty (arising from your ownership). Breach
means falling below the standard of a reasonable owner (perhaps letting
your dog off its lead next to a main road). Causation means that but-for
your negligence the claimant/their property would not have suffered
harm. And damage means some kind of loss to the claimant (whether
personal injury or property damage). If all of this is established, the claimant is entitled to compensation from you."
https://bridgelawsolicitors.co.uk/duties-responsibilities-animals/#:~:text=If%20you%20own%20pets%2C%20livestock,prevent%20them%20from%20causing%20harm.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)