In recent years, with the continuous improvement of people's quality of life, keeping pets has become a part of many people's lives. Looking at dog breeding alone, the China Pet Industry White Paper shows that the number of dogs in China’s cities and towns in 2022 will be 51.19 million.

While dogs add fun to life, some dog breeders and managers lack the awareness of civilization, safety and responsibility, and neglect the management of dogs, resulting in the health and safety of dogs. It affects the lives of others in terms of safety and security, which leads to many conflicts and disputes. In particular, incidents of dogs hurting people have occurred frequently in recent years. Coordinating and unifying dog-raising happiness and dog-raising safety 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.

< /p>

On February 5, the Supreme People's Court issued typical cases of animal harm caused to people, calling for civilized dog raising and dog raising in accordance with the rules, strengthening the awareness of responsible dog raising and responsible dog raising, and forming strict law enforcement and all people abiding by the law. The atmosphere and environment for raising dogs. "I hope that all dog owners will carry the rules, remember safety, take responsibility, and fulfill their obligations for the happiness, joy, and peace of themselves and others when traveling with their pets," said the person in charge of the Supreme People's Court.

If large dogs that are prohibited from breeding injure people, regardless of whether the victim is at fault, the dog owner shall bear full responsibility

Liu Moumou raised an Alaskan dog, which belongs to the city's built-in Large dogs are prohibited in the area. 7-year-old Xu Moumou was playing with her grandmother Wang Moumou in the community when she came across Liu Moumou leading the dog out. When Wang and Xu were playing with the dog, the dog suddenly scratched Xu's face. Xu Moumou was sent to the hospital for treatment by his family and was hospitalized. Afterwards, the two parties failed to negotiate on the compensation matter, and Xu Moumou filed a lawsuit, requesting Liu Moumou to compensate for more than 30,000 yuan in medical expenses and other expenses.

The trial court held that animal keepers should bear higher management responsibilities while enjoying fun in raising animals, and strictly abide by relevant management regulations to reduce the impact of the animals they raise on the health and personal safety of others. danger, create a safe living environment, and maintain social and public order. The Civil Code stipulates that if dangerous animals such as violent dogs that are prohibited from being raised cause harm to others, the animal breeder or manager shall bear tort liability. This provision states that the breeders or managers of dangerous animals such as violent dogs that are prohibited from breeding shall bear the "strictest no-fault liability." There is no excuse for exemption, and they have no right to defend against reducing or exempting liability, and bear a heavier burden. legal liability. If a breeder or manager violates regulations by raising dangerous animals such as ferocious dogs, he or she has committed a serious subjective fault, and the breeder or manager shall bear tort liability. In this case, the Alaskan dog raised by Liu Moumou is a large dog prohibited from breeding in the city. The dog scratched Xu Moumou. Although Xu Moumou was at fault for teasing the dog, it does not reduce Liu Moumou's responsibility. Liu Moumou should compensate Xu Moumou for all reasonable expenses incurred thereby.

If a pregnant woman terminates her pregnancy after being bitten by a dog, the breeder should bear the relevant expenses

An was bitten by a dog raised by Miao in the community, and An went to the hospital for a rabies vaccine injection. Miao paid for the vaccine. Later, An discovered that she was pregnant when she received the vaccine. In order to avoid fetal dysplasia, An chose to terminate the pregnancy after consulting the hospital and other parties, which caused great physical and mental pain. An Mou believed that Miao Mou failed to fulfill his duty of care for the dogs he raised, which resulted in him being bitten. There was a legal causal relationship between the injection of rabies vaccine and the termination of pregnancy after being bitten by the dog. Therefore, An asked Miao to compensate for the expenses incurred in terminating the pregnancy. Miao believes that injection of rabies vaccine will not necessarily lead to fetal malformation, and Miao did not know about An's pregnancy. An should bear the consequences of the damage caused by terminating the pregnancy after injecting the rabies vaccine. As negotiations between the two parties failed, An filed a lawsuit.

The trial court held that the dog raised by Miao bit An, and Miao could not prove that An was intentional or grossly negligent. Miao should bear compensation for all damages caused by An’s bite. responsibility. An was bitten by a dog and injected with a rabies vaccine. Later, she discovered that she was pregnant. She performed a pregnancy termination surgery because she was worried that the vaccine would have adverse effects on the fetus. This behavior is normal behavior that is consistent with An’s living environment and the medical cognitive abilities of ordinary people. Therefore, An’s claim for reasonable expenses such as medical expenses, lost work expenses, nutritional expenses, transportation expenses, and mental damage solatium due to the termination of pregnancy surgery should be supported. The final verdict was that Miao compensated An for 6,069 yuan in various expenses and losses.

The Supreme Court stated that this case is a typical case of a dog injuring a person and causing consequences of terminating the pregnancy. Currently, although there is no medical conclusion on whether rabies vaccination affects fetal development, the "use with caution" reminder in the vaccine instructions implies some adverse effects. At the same time, giving birth to a healthy child is the most basic expectation of parents. Finding out that you are pregnant and terminating the pregnancy after taking the rabies vaccine is in line with the normal cognition of ordinary people. When determining the causal relationship between being bitten by a dog, injecting rabies vaccine and terminating pregnancy, in addition to relying on identification and medical conclusions, general social cognition and social ethics should also be considered, and attention should be paid to the social value guidance of the judgment results. Therefore, there is a causal relationship in tort liability law between the vaccination and the termination of pregnancy after the dog causes damage to a human. The damage caused by the termination of pregnancy falls within the scope of the dog's liability for damage, and the tortfeasor should compensate.

< /p>

The dog chased the passerby, causing him to be frightened and fall, and the breeder was also responsible for the "non-contact injury"

When Zhang A drove a battery car through a section of a certain village, Zhang B The big black dog he kept chased the battery car, causing Zhang A to be frightened and fall down, injuring his knee joint. After calling the police, the police from the police station arrived at the scene. After coordination with the police, Zhang B’s family sent Zhang A to the hospital for hospitalization. Later, it was determined that Zhang A's knee joint constituted a tenth-level disability. Zhang A filed a lawsuit and requested Zhang B to compensate for various losses.

The trial court held that the dangers of raising animals do not only refer to injuries caused by direct physical contact, but also frightening others. There is a causal relationship between the damages caused by the infringer Zhang A and the dogs raised by the infringer Zhang B that frightened the infringed person. Zhang B, as the breeder of the dogs, failed to perform reasonable management obligations and cannot prove that the dog was infringed. The infringer Zhang B was intentional and should bear full liability for compensation. Final judgment: Zhang B compensates Zhang A for reasonable expenses of 211,264.63 yuan.

The behaviors of bred dogs that cause harm to people are not limited to their biting, scratching and other direct contact with human bodies. Dogs' behaviors such as barking, sniffing, or chasing others when close to others may also cause panic in certain situations and result in physical harm. Even if the dog he keeps does not have direct physical contact with others, as long as there is a causal relationship with the damage, it is still a "raised animal causing harm to others", and the owner should still bear the corresponding liability. The handling of this case will serve as a guide for the judgment of cases involving “non-contact injuries” to pets. When raising pets in daily life, owners or managers should increase their awareness of discipline. They should reasonably control and supervise dogs when they are outside, and take full responsibility for the health and safety of themselves and others.

Illegal dog-raising behavior should be denied and stopped

Wang Moumou ran a dry goods stall in a certain vegetable market. He kept 11 dogs in the dry goods stall without a license and without a leash. Leash. The local public security agency issued a "Notice of Order to Correction" to Wang, but Wang still had not registered his dog. Later, after the police station received reports from the masses and learned about it, the police rushed to the scene to persuade Wang Moumou, but to no avail. The police took Wang Moumou to the police station to make an inquiry transcript. At the same time, an animal rescue center was contacted to help capture the illegally raised dogs on site and send them to the local stray dog ​​reception center. The public security organ issued an "Administrative Penalty Decision" and decided to confiscate 11 unlicensed dogs raised by Wang Moumou. Wang Moumou was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting to revoke the "Administrative Penalty Decision".

The trial court held that the local "Regulations on Dog Breeding Management" stipulated that a registration system should be implemented for dog breeding in key management areas. No unit or individual is allowed to raise unregistered dogs; each household in key management areas is limited to one, and aggressive dogs and large dogs are not allowed to be raised; individuals who keep more than one dog per household will be criticized and educated by the public security organs and ordered to Correction deadline. If the dog does not change within the time limit, the number of dogs exceeding the limit will be confiscated. Accordingly, the public security organs have the authority to investigate and deal with illegal dog breeding within their jurisdiction. In this case, Wang Moumou refused to make corrections after being ordered to do so. Before the decision to punish the defendant was made, the public security agency conducted an investigation and confirmed that Wang Moumou was raising dogs without a license and the evidence was sufficient. According to the above provisions, the public security organs decided to confiscate the unlicensed dogs raised by Wang Moumou. The application of laws and regulations was correct and the punishment was not inappropriate. After the public security organ registered the case, it carried out the investigation and inquiry, pre-punishment statement and defense procedures in accordance with the law, and the procedures were legal. Final judgment: Wang Moumou’s claim was dismissed.

A harmonious environment advocates civilized dog-raising, and a legal society supports dog-raising in accordance with the law. In this case, the People's Court relied on administrative trials and legally supported the administrative penalties imposed by the public security organs on breeders who failed to fulfill their legal obligations to register dogs and fail to perform their care obligations. This effectively prevented unspecified groups of people in public places from being exposed to the dogs involved in the case. Damage and avoid the negative consequences of dogs hurting people.