what we want you to know is
Pet owners who cause others to be frightened and injured by their pets outside are usually jointly and severally liable. Accompanied by adults, and take appropriate protective measures." But the protagonist of today's story is not the medium and large dogs that often appear in the general news, but the "parrot", which is generally considered harmless by the public.
According to news reports, two years ago, a man surnamed Huang in Nantai led a macaw to be released outdoors. Unexpectedly, the parrot flew directly to the back of the head of a doctor surnamed Lin who was jogging past. The fall resulted in a dislocated and comminuted fracture of the hip joint of his right leg.
Lin Nan filed criminal and civil complaints against Huang Nan respectively. How did the judge determine this rare case? Let's take a look at the analysis of law exercises.
Owners should take appropriate precautions
Article 7 of the "Animal Protection Law" stipulates that "the owner shall prevent the animals he raises from infringing on the life, body, freedom or property of others for no reason" and Article 20, Item 2 stipulates that "aggressive pets enter and exit public places or the public cannot enter places, they should be accompanied by adults and take appropriate protective measures.”
From the above provisions, it can be seen that legally the owner must be responsible for the behavior of the animal. According to the definition of the Animal Protection Law, the owner refers to "the owner of the animal or the person who actually takes care of the animal." If the lack of proper protection results in infringement of the legal rights of others, the owner must face negligence liability in civil and criminal matters.
What's more, for example, if you know your dog has a fierce personality, but let it roam around without a leash, if an attack occurs because of this, you may also constitute the "uncertain intention" of the crime of injury
So what is an aggressive pet? Does it need to be announced by the Council of Agriculture?
Judging from the judgment, as long as the animals appear to be aggressive in appearance, they may be classified as "aggressive pets" in the Animal Protection Law. It mentions that "the macaw is about 40 cm tall, and its wings are about 60 cm wide... In terms of appearance, it is not a cute little animal that is easy to get close to, but it is a giant."
The court held that even though the purpose of the parrot flying towards others was not to attack people, when a giant approached, it would make people feel "under attack", so it was determined that it was already aggressive in appearance.
Not long ago, the release of parrots at the Zhongzhuang Adjustment Pool in Daxi District, Taoyuan also frightened people, causing the park to set up a warning sign saying "Large parrots are not allowed to fly for training", causing public outrage among bird lovers. Although bird lovers all think that they will choose a time when unmanned vehicles are available to fly, there will be no problem.
But in fact, the owner surnamed Huang in this case has actually chosen to release the parrots at a time and place where there are few people and cars, but unfortunately there is still a case of negligent injury, so in fact, there is still a certain degree of risk when releasing parrots. Now, bird lovers can only hope that their parrots will not be "too enthusiastic" to passers-by.
Is there any civil fault?
In terms of civil matters, our country stipulates that the torts caused by animals are stipulated in Article 190, which stipulates that the liability for damages shall be borne by the owner of the animal, but if the damage cannot be avoided after fulfilling the management responsibility, there is no need to bear the obligation of compensation.
If the tort of the animal is caused by the instigation of the "third party", although the owner of the animal still needs to bear the liability for damages to the victim, the owner can also seek compensation from the "third party".
In this case, doctor surnamed Lin was frightened by the parrot, fell and fractured, so he asked the owner for medical expenses, job loss, labor reduction and spiritual comfort money according to the law. The court ruled that Huang should pay more than 3.04 million yuan.
Although Huang Nan claimed that according to Article 133 of the Road Traffic Safety Rules, pedestrians are not allowed to jog on the road, so he was also at fault, and the amount of compensation should be reduced in accordance with Article 217 of the "Civil Code" and the provisions of negligence.
However, the court held that this regulation was formulated based on keeping the road clear and pedestrians safe, and had nothing to do with the fright caused by the approaching animals, and the same situation might happen even if the animal passed by by walking, so Lin Nan was not at fault.