Now more and more people are starting to raise cats and dogs as pets, and many people regard pets as their own family. The daily dog food and cat food feel better than people.
Nowadays, people define cats and dogs as companion animal , and some people even tease themselves as cat slaves. If the cat owner is unhappy, they will show their face.
But no matter how human animals are, animals are animals. After all, they are not humans, especially some large dogs, which are still very dangerous. The most annoying thing I hear in daily life is that our family is so obedient.
A large golden retriever looks very well-behaved, but mainly because it is big, it is dangerous, and it is indeed very well-behaved to the owner, but it is not necessarily to others.
Therefore, our Civil Code has made very clear provisions on animal infringement. In the following case, there was an extreme situation. The dog bit the person to death. Should the dog owner be responsible?
Basic fact: Lian came to a villa and found that there was no one in the resident's house, so he was preparing to steal. When Lian was about to climb over the wall, he was frightened by the screams of two guardian wolf dogs and left. Not long after, Lian threw two bones mixed with medicine into the hospital, preparing to poison the two wolf dogs to death before committing theft. Lian jumped off the high wall, but the drug was not effective. Lian was bitten by two wolf dogs. The neighbors called the police after hearing the screams. When the police arrived at the scene, Lian was already dead.
This is the basic case. Later, the police verified that Lian was a habitual criminal. He was once criminally punished twice for theft and twice for the administrative penalty. Only such a habitual criminal would think of the idea of taking the medicine first and then stealing it, but he did not expect to lose his life because of it.
How should we characterize the behavior of dogs killing people?
dogs cannot carry out self-defense. Self-defense and emergency risk avoidance are both illegal reasons for blocking, that is, you seem to have done illegal things on the surface, such as injuring others.
But because there are reasons for illegal blocking, the act of hurting others is not illegal. This is called illegal blocking. You must remember that the so-called legal and illegal violations are all aimed at people. All laws and regulations only restrict people and not animals.
Never say that dogs kill thieves, they are defending themselves. There is no such thing as self-defense as dogs, because dogs kill people, there is no such thing as whether they are illegal or not.
In this case, if a dog bites a person to death, it does not need to bear criminal responsibility, because although a dog cannot establish self-defense, the dog can be regarded as a tool for the owner to defend himself.
So the whole thing can be seen as the owner used the dog as a tool to implement the legitimate defense behavior , and there was no fault, so the dog bites the thief to death and does not need to bear criminal responsibility.
The error here refers to the thief climbing over the villa wall by himself, and the owner is not present. If the owner is present and lets the dog bite the person to death, it is obviously an excessive defense, but the owner is not at home at this time, so the owner is not at home.
has a legitimate reason for defense. Is the owner at fault? Comprehensive evaluation of this matter, the dog owner does not need to bear criminal responsibility, but this matter is reasonable. After all, the thief is dead. Is the civil liability responsible for compensation?
Let’s first look at the provisions of the Civil Code. Article 1,245 of the Civil Code stipulates that if the animals raised cause damage to others, the animal breeder or manager shall bear tort liability; however, if it can be proved that the damage was caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the infringer, the liability may not be borne or reduced.
It is also clear here that raising animals can cause damage to others and the other party is at fault tomorrow, liability can be reduced or exempted.
In this case, the thief was at great fault, but the dog's act of biting a person to death is already the most serious infringement and infringing on others' right to life.
So in this case, is the dog owner at fault?
As the owner of a large dog, putting two dogs at home without protection is itself a certain danger. For example, if someone mistakenly enters and bites someone, this will definitely be compensated.
Thieves are hateful, but the dog directly bites the person until he dies. Such serious consequences show that the dog owner's daily training for the dog, including the dog itself, is dangerous.
Overall, if the dog bites the thief to death, the dog owner does not need to bear criminal responsibility, but the most serious tort has occurred in the civil liability. Although the other party is wrong, the dog owner is not wrong at all. In terms of civil matters, he must bear certain compensation liability.
What do you think about this case? Welcome to leave a message to communicate.
So in this case, is the dog owner at fault?
As the owner of a large dog, putting two dogs at home without protection is itself a certain danger. For example, if someone mistakenly enters and bites someone, this will definitely be compensated.
Thieves are hateful, but the dog directly bites the person until he dies. Such serious consequences show that the dog owner's daily training for the dog, including the dog itself, is dangerous.
Overall, if the dog bites the thief to death, the dog owner does not need to bear criminal responsibility, but the most serious tort has occurred in the civil liability. Although the other party is wrong, the dog owner is not wrong at all. In terms of civil matters, he must bear certain compensation liability.
What do you think about this case? Welcome to leave a message to communicate.
