news link
A news that "a man has been beaten to death a golden retriever has been detained" has been posted on Weibo for many hot searches recently. After the local police investigation and verification, the incident was restored: Mr. Wang tied a rope and took his golden retriever for a walk in the community. , The poodle with the hostess beside him but not tied to the rope rushed to see it, but was bitten to death by the golden retriever. The male owner of the poodle who was called to the scene beat the golden retriever to death with a stick in front of Mr. Wang and was detained by the police. What crime is the involved man suspected of? My pet dog has been violated to death, how should the owner defend his rights properly?
video screenshot
1, the owner or the administrator shall bear the tort liability for animal harm.
Human damage caused by raising animals is a common type of infringement. Article 78 and Article 82 of my country’s Tort Liability Law stipulate that the animal caused to others causes others In case of damage, the animal breeder or manager shall bear the tort liability, but it is not necessary to assume or mitigate the liability if it can be proved that the damage was caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the infringed. If an abandoned or escaped animal causes damage to others during the abandonment or escape, the original animal breeder or manager shall bear tort liability. The animal breeder usually refers to the owner of the animal, and the animal manager refers to the person who actually controls or restrains the animal. The so-called causing damage to others here includes causing personal damage or property damage to others in varying degrees.
It can be seen that our country adopts a strict no-fault liability principle for the harm caused by raising animals, and it constitutes infringement without subjective fault of the animal breeder or manager. But at the same time, the article also provides for certain exemptions or reductions. Therefore, the animal breeder or manager shall bear the tort liability for the harm caused by raising animals, and the following three elements must be met at the same time: one is the illegality of the behavior, that is, there is an act of harming the animal; the other is the consequence of the damage; There is a causal relationship between the harmful behavior of raising animals and the damage consequences. The specific methods of assuming liability for torts caused by animals are mainly compensation for losses, an apology, etc.
For example, while walking his teacup dog, the plaintiff Li met an unleashed golden retriever dog raised by the defendant Wang. Later the golden retriever attacked the teacup dog, causing him to be unable to stand and was euthanized a few days later due to serious injuries. . Li requested the court to order Wang to bear the cost of purchasing the dog, raising expenses, inspection and euthanasia totaling 20,000 yuan. After the trial, the court held that the teacup dog’s casualties were caused by Wang’s golden retriever, and there was no evidence to prove that it was caused by Li’s intentional or gross negligence. Therefore, Wang, as the animal breeder, should bear the corresponding tort liability, and the final sentence He was ordered to compensate Li 12,000 yuan and apologize in writing.
In the above news link, the Golden Retriever dog raised by Mr. Wang killed someone else’s poodle, which is a circumstance that caused damage to other people’s property of a certain value. As an animal breeder, Mr. Wang shall be liable for torts such as compensation for losses or an apology according to law. , And the assertion of the above-mentioned infringement liability is precisely the correct way for the owner of the poodle to defend their rights and obtain relief.
is particularly worth noting that in the case of intentional or gross negligence of the infringed, the animal breeder or manager’s infringement liability can be reduced or exempted according to the specific circumstances. For example: Dong found a stray dog with a leash at on the street at , and tied the dog to a nearby tree during the card game. 6-year-old Liu happened to be bitten on the face by a dog while passing by with his family. After the incident, Dong transferred the dog to someone outside the case. After the trial, the court held that Dong actually controlled and managed the dog after he picked up the stray dog. Later, the dog bit Liu and Dong, as the manager, should bear the corresponding tort liability. At the same time, when the puppy had been tied to a tree, Liu was bitten as a person with no capacity for civil conduct, and his guardian had gross negligence, so Dong's tort liability should be reduced.
According to relevant laws and regulations, the infringed party is obliged to prove that the infringement facts and the animal causing the harm are owned or managed by the accused infringer, otherwise the claim will not be supported. It is worth noting that in the incident of stray dogs causing harm, only the adoption or actual control of the stray dog is responsible for the responsibility. The occasional feeding and the behavior of allowing the stray dog to play with his own dog does not constitute an attack on the stray dog. Adoption or actual control of dogs.
2. The principle of offsetting faults is not applicable to the damage caused by raising fierce dogs.
Tort Liability Law stipulates that the responsibility of raising animals is to relieve the infringed and maintain public safety. Considering that animals such as violating management regulations or raising fierce dogs are more dangerous and more harmful, it is the potential to put others in direct attack by the animal.Under threat, therefore, Article 79 and Article 80 of my country’s Tort Liability Law stipulate that if the animal owner or manager violates the management regulations, fails to take safety measures against the animal, or raises dangerous animals such as violent dogs that are prohibited to raise, causing others Damages, you should bear tort liability, and there is no reason for reduction or exemption.
Take the following case as an example: When Liu was walking his dog on a leash, he went to the gate of a community in Chaoyang District, Beijing, and met Li who was walking an unleashed white Samoyed dog. The two dogs were chasing him. When Liu picked up his puppy, he was bitten by a Samoyed, suffered multiple soft tissue contusions and fractured his left thumb. After the trial, the court found that Li raised large dogs in violation of the regulations in the prohibited area of this city, and did not take any safety measures to walk the dogs in violation of the regulations, a serious violation of the "Beijing Dog Management Regulations", and a major subjective fault. Based on the facts ascertained, the court ruled that Li should bear strict no-fault liability and does not apply the principle of offsetting faults. Even if Liu was at fault in the specific process, Li must compensate Liu for all related economic infringements caused by animal husbandry. loss.
needs to point out that in disputes over infringement caused by raising animals, the most common is that there are no witnesses or monitoring, and the defendant refuses to admit that the damage is caused by his own animals. Article 108 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that for the evidence provided by the party who bears the burden of proof, the court has reviewed and combined relevant facts and is convinced that the existence of the fact to be proved has If there is a high probability, the fact should be determined to exist. Therefore, in such cases, on the basis that the plaintiff has fulfilled the obligation of proof, the court will usually adopt the "high probability" standard to reach inner conviction to ascertain the facts, and then determine whether the plaintiff's damage was caused by the defendant's animal. This also reminds the public that when encountering a dispute over infringement of human damage caused by raising animals, they should pay attention to reporting the case in time, and try to obtain and retain on-site evidence such as surveillance video, audio and video recordings, and witness testimony to help the judge as much as possible.
3. Killing expensive pets or committing the crime of deliberately destroying property
In the above news link, the main reason why the male owner of the poodle who killed the Golden Retriever was under criminal detention was that his behavior was suspected to constitute the crime of intentional destruction of property. According to the provisions of my country's Criminal Law, deliberate destruction or damage to public and private property that is not owned by oneself, a large amount or other serious circumstances constitutes the crime of intentional destruction of property, and shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention or fine of not more than 3 years; large amount or other serious circumstances Those with particularly serious circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more than 7 years. From this it can be seen that the subjectively constituting the crime must be intentional, and whether it reaches a large amount or serious circumstances is the boundary between crime and non-crime.
According to Article 33 of my country’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate and Ministry of Public Security on Prosecution Standards for Criminal Cases Under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs, Article 33 and relevant judicial interpretations, a larger amount means that the value of the destroyed property is more than 5,000 yuan, while the amount is huge. It means that the value of the destroyed property is more than 50,000 yuan. Destroying public and private property more than three times, gathering three or more people to publicly destroy public and private property, destroy or damage important items, cause serious losses, destroy or damage public and private property, and the means to destroy or damage public and private properties are particularly bad. Plot behavior. In addition, in accordance with the provisions of my country’s Criminal Law, if the intentional destruction of other people’s property constitutes a crime, the civil liability for compensation shall also be borne.
Therefore, whether the male owner of the poodle constitutes the crime of deliberately destroying property, the key needs to prove or appraise the value of the damaged property, namely the Golden Retriever. If it is determined by sufficient evidence or appraisal that the loss of Wang and Lao’s property exceeds 5,000 yuan, it may constitute a criminal offence; otherwise, it may constitute a general illegal act and will be subject to administrative penalties in accordance with the provisions of my country’s Public Security Management Penalty Law.
Some citizens expressed their doubts that golden retrievers with higher value would be detained, so what about ordinary dogs with lower value? If the value of the killed dog is significantly less than 5,000 yuan, it is usually not subject to criminal detention. However, Article 49 of my country’s Public Security Administration Punishment Law stipulates that those who deliberately damage public or private property shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days, and a fine of not more than 500 yuan may be imposed; if the circumstances are more serious, they shall be detained for not less than 10 days but not more than 15 days. Impose a fine of less than 1,000 yuan. Therefore, if an ordinary dog with a value of less than 5,000 yuan belonging to the state, collective or individual citizen is killed subjectively and deliberately, even if it does not meet the penal standard, it will still be subject to administrative detention or fines and other public security management penalties. In addition, in recent years, stray dogs have often been killed and lovedThe news of dog protests occurs. If the killed dog is just an abandoned or lost stray dog, if the stray dog has been adopted by another person or a dog shelter, etc., or is found afterwards by the dog owner, and the adopter or dog owner If you call the police and claim your rights, the person who kills the stray dog will still be subject to administrative and even criminal penalties and civil compensation at the same time.
Source: Beijing Daily
Author: Wang Xiaolu (Author: Beijing Shijingshan District People's Court)
process editor: Wang Hongwei
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-