Liability of Dog Owner For Dog’s Attack On Innocent Individual

In most jurisdictions, anyone owning a canine is expected to control that same pet. Failure to carry out that duty could be reason for liability charges, following a biting incident.

In order to have a court recognize such charges, the victim would need to produce proof of the owner’s negligence.

• One proof would offer evidence of the owner’s need to control the pet.
• A second proof should show that the owner had failed to provide the pet canine with the required amount of control.
• The final proof would have to link the owner’s negligence to the harm that was suffered by the attacked individual.

An additional factor that would be examined by a court that had received the victim’s case

Should the dog’s owner have foreseen what could happen in the absence of a sufficient level of control? Had the owner’s actions been reasonable, in light of the circumstances that preceded the attack? Would a reasonable individual, acting under the prevailing circumstances, have anticipated the final result?

Dog owners that pay someone else to walk their pet should undertake measures that ought to ensure the walker’s ability to control the 4 legs at the other end of the leash. If the walker’s employer (the dog’s owner) had failed to provide the walker with a leash, then he or she could be held liable for any biting incident, as per injury lawyer in Sherwood Park.

Was the responsible pet a type of dog that was known to be aggressive? If that were the case, then the court would hope to find evidence of some added form of protection, for those that must pass the home of the aggressive animal.

Owners’ possible defenses

The canine had attacked a burglar or trespasser. The victim had provoked the owner’s pet. Not all states have the same description for an act of provocation. In some states, an individual’s inability to see that he or she was stepping on a dog’s paw could qualify as such an act.

Young children should not be held responsible for a gesture that has provoked the sudden attack. By the same token, a dog’s owner could not be held responsible for the sudden fear experienced by a child that has heard the loud bark from an animal that was under a suitable level of control.

A situation not covered by the posted regulations

That would be one in which some person or group had chosen to provide a temporary home for a pregnant female/canine. In that situation, the new mother would be prone to protect her pups. She might run after someone that walked past her temporary home. Suppose that some passerby were attacked. Who would be liable for the damages? Could the owner be held liable?