DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS
by Rob Miller
Owners or keepers of domestic animals may become
legally responsible to compensate a person who is injured as a
consequence of their animals’ behaviour. Domestic animals,
generally, are those commonly kept and cared for about the house.
Legal responsibility will result in circumstances where the injury
or damage is caused by the animals “vicious propensity” if the owner
or carer knew of the animals likelihood to injure. To establish the
legal responsibility of the animals’ owner, it is not necessary to
prove that the owner knew it had attempted to injure, it is
sufficient to prove that the animal is to the knowledge of its owner
“ferocious” to human beings. Even should the owner of the animal not
be aware of the ferociousness, he or she may still be legally
responsible if the negligence if the owner can be proven in the
usual way.
In Queensland it is an offence, for example, to
allow or encourage a “restricted dog” to attack a person or another
animal. Local authorities are empowered to make laws about the
seizure of dangerous and restricted dogs. As well, Queensland Local
Government Legislation makes detailed provision for the control of
restricted dogs. A dog is a “restricted dog” if it is a Dogo
Argentino, Fila Brasileiro or Japanese Tosa, a dog of the type
commonly known as “American Pittbull Terrier” or “Pittbull Terrier”
or the offspring or crossbreed of any of the above, even if a dog
does not appear to be that type of breed. Generally, it is an
offence to keep a restricted dog without a Restricted Dog Permit
from the relevant Local Government. An adult may apply for such a
permit but only if there is a detached house on the place to which
the permit is supplied and somebody usually lives in the house. The
d-sexing of restricted dogs is compulsory. The Queensland
Legislation also provides for the identification of restricted dogs,
imposes conditions on keeping restricted dogs and requirements for
the control of restricted dogs and allows authorised persons to
seize or destroy restricted dogs.
In Queensland there is a legal principle known as
the rule in Searle v Wallbank (a rule which has been abolished in
all states and territories except the Northern Territory and
Queensland). The rule is that there is no general obligation imposed
on the owner or occupier of land adjoining a road to fence the land
to keep that person’s animals, not known to be dangerous, off the
road. If an animal escapes onto a road and injures a person using
the road then the owner or the occupier of the land is legally
liable to compensate if it can be shown that the owner or occupier
of the land knew that the animal possessed a vicious or mischievous
propensity or perhaps in circumstances where the animals escape in
such numbers as to cause an obstruction.
Rob Miller is a lawyer at Miller Bou-Samra Lawyers.
Other articles of interest
-
Re-Writing A Will Or What To Do If You Are Left Out Of A
Will Read here
-
Defamation Over The Internet Read
here
-
Testamentary Capacity Read here
|
