Liability for Harm Caused by Domestic Animal
Where a domestic animal causes any damage to another, the keeper or manager of the animal shall be subject to tort liability, but may assume no liability or assume mitigated liability if it proves that the harm is caused by the victim intentionally or by
- PDF / 65,362 Bytes
- 6 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 38 Downloads / 208 Views
Liability for Harm Caused by Domestic Animal
Article 78 Rule Where a domestic animal causes any damage to another, the keeper or manager of the animal shall be subject to tort liability, but may assume no liability or assume mitigated liability if it proves that the harm is caused by the victim intentionally or by the gross negligence of the victim. Explanation This article is a general regulation for damage caused by a domestic animal. It specifies that, in general situation, the strict liability or liability without fault shall be applied when damages are caused by a domestic animal. Although it seems the keeper or manager is responsible for his pets’ conduct, his own carelessness in keeping or managing pets is the source of liability. Where the danger resulted in damages, the keeper or manager shall assume civil liability. Liability cannot be mitigated or reduced, but a legal defense is possible if the infringed was intentional or had major fault. And this article adopts the reverse burden of proof, which conforms to Clause 5 of Article 4 of Some Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures. In the article, the keeper or manager would not be liable or be able to mitigate liability if he/she can prove that the damage was incurred by the injured party deliberately or the injured party was at major fault for the damage. If the keeper or manager fails to provide sufficient evidence, he/she shall be liable. Obviously, the purpose of this article is to help the injured party get compensation in an easier way. Example Tan raised a large dog at home. He did not have it chained and let it run freely in the yard. One day Tan sent for a rag collector to collect waste paper boxes. When the victim entered the yard, the dog pounced on him and bit a piece of flesh off his leg. The attack also gave the victim a concussion. The dog did not stop biting and pouncing until Tan held it back. In court, Tan asserted that the dog possessed a gentle character and that the victim provoked the dog, which was the main cause of the accident. The Court required Tan to submit evidence showing the victim’s fault, and Tan failed to do so. So, the Court ruled that Tan was liable and should compensate the victim ¥10,000. X. Li and J. Jin, Concise Chinese Tort Laws, China-EU Law Series 1, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41024-6_22, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
225
226
22
Liability for Harm Caused by Domestic Animal
Article 79 Rule If any damage is caused to another person by an animal keeper or manager’s failure to take safety measures in violation of management rules, they shall be subject to tort liability. Explanation This article articulates the liability where damage is caused by a failure to take security measures for an animal. The exemptions in Article 78 do not apply to tort cases and apply when there is a failure to take security measures for an animal in violation of regulations. The civil liability where any damage is caused by a domestic animal is a no-fault liability. That is to say, when demandin
Data Loading...
