WHAT IF THE YOUR DOG BITES A RANDOM PERSON ? |With Case Laws

INTRODUCTION

Dog bites in India has been a dangerously threatening hazard to many individual person around the country. Others have been fairly treated by the owners of those stray dogs while other unfortunate members have continued to suffer reluctantly from those unfair treatments.

It must be noted here that common law regarding harm caused by dogs and how the same is actionable is quite heavily based on the common law classification of animals. Therefore, under the common law, injury inflicted by a dog had been made actionable under negligence and a specific form of strict liability which is known as the scienter rule and action.

The scienter action dictates that if any animal falling within the mansuetae naturae – gentle by nature category say, a dog inflicts harm then the owner of such dog would be liable only if the aggrieved party was able to prove that the particular dog had a vicious or mischievous predisposition or propensity towards doing such harm and also that the owner of the dog possessed knowledge of such propensity.

 This principle of instituting strict liability upon a dog owner, in essence, implies that since a dog is not usually a ferocious being, if a dog inflicts harm then the owner of such dog can only be made strictly liable if such dog is indeed a dog with decidedly ferocious and mischievous tendencies and to that effect poses a threat to the society and hence cannot be allowed by its owner to be within the purview of people or other animals for whom the dog may very likely constitute a threat.

However, for a dog owner to act responsibly and take necessary precautions by keeping his dangerous dog outside the society of other people, the owner is required to know of such dangerous propensity and hence the second condition to impose strict liability under the scienter action is the owner’s knowledge regarding the same.

AN ANALYSIS OF STRICT LIABILITY OF OWNER FOR DOG BITES IN INDIA

It should be noted that under the dangerous dog laws in India, several high courts as well as the Supreme Court of India have required owners of dogs to take special precautions once their animals have injured someone or merely have threatened a person who suffered fear and apprehension as well as other possible dangers altogether.

The judges of such courts have the power to order the euthanization of such dogs in situations where they possess serious dangers to the people and failures by the owners of the dogs to abide by the regulations so enacted shall face serious criminal penalties for such misconducts thus strict liability under the Indian laws against dog bites. 

This however is not to suggest that the imposition of strict liability on dog owners is not required or in any manner, is a measure unnecessary merely on the grounds of how dogs are perceived to be in the society or this particular human-canine relationship because the fact remains that although dog bites can be an infrequent phenomenon, the absence of dog bite laws or the imposition of strict liability on dog owners would leave such individuals directly or indirectly receiving a dog injury without any possible remedy at hand.

This is merely to portray the contradiction between the dog bite laws and their interpretations in various common-wealth nations and the probable cause for the same. If one starts to understand that dogs are not naturally perceived as a naturally ferocious animal, a discussion regarding the English common law classification of animals becomes necessary.

The English common law dictates classification of animals into Ferae Naturae and mansuetae naturae. ‘Ferae naturae’ refers to all such animals that are perceived to be innately dangerous, for instance, lions, elephants, zebras or bears, whereas ‘mansuetae naturae’ refers to animals that are perceived as harmless and are quite easily domesticated such as cats, cows, dogs, goats, sheep rats and donkeys among others.

A dog to be harmless is established as the normal disposition for a dog and if any dog exhibits dangerous characteristics, it is considered to be an abnormality, an anomaly or an exception altogether.

Therefore, under common law strict liability, the liability incurred by the dog owner is in the act of keeping a dog that he knows to be dangerous and once it is proved that such owner knew his dog to be hostile and dangerous and had still kept such a dog, then whether the owner had taken necessary or more than necessary precautions to confine such dog so that it does not come in the society of other people stands immaterial thus the strict liability shall definitely stand as per the law so established. Further, the not taking of precautions does not absolve such dog owner of the liability imposed upon him regarding the injury caused by his dangerous dog.

This could also be better understood with an analysis of the case of Barger v. Jimerson. In this case, the defendant, a neighbour to the plaintiff had a ferocious dog which consequently bite the neighbour. The complaint alleged that the Bargers’ upon knowing of the ferocious nature of the dog had still kept it which then resulted in injuries sustained by Jimerson. The court held that whether the defendants, Bargers, had taken necessary precautions or not, whether they had let ‘said dog run at large and loose’ was immaterial. 

The court held that it could be easily deduced that the defendants had not been careless and had never harboured any intention of letting the dog run at large and loose but the liability is accrued by the defendants on the facts that they had equally chosen to keep the dog that they knew was ferocious in nature without disposing it off before it could cause such harms to the people around their.

The court opined that a dog does not have to have a history of biting or in actuality attacking people in order to establish a ferocious nature but rather the vicious propensity of a dog may be understood by a natural fierceness or mischievous disposition which may lead the dog to attack or bite on some occasion. 

Therefore, although this German shepherd had never attacked anybody before but because of the ferocious nature that he regularly exhibited to people it made all such reasonable individuals to be aware of the possibility of being attacked by it.

Besides, this dog decidedly had a propensity for ferociousness by its very nature and on the note of whether the defendants had knowledge of such dangerous propensity, the court opined that apart from the obvious assessment of its ferocity that the defendants must have done based on the dog’s usual behaviour, the fact that the defendants always ensured that the dog was kept confined also suggested very clearly that they were aware of its dangerous disposition.

Therefore, the defendants were held liable under strict liability for the harm caused to the plaintiff by their dog.

CERTAIN DEFENSES BY THE DOG OWNER

Only three defences can be raised by the owner of a dog owner which are:

• Injured person teased the dog,
• Injured person trespassed during the incident and 
• Injured persons own carelessness.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the liability of a dog owner is strict in nature and such liability cannot be waived by the courts of law by merely stating the fact that the owner is ignorant about the ferociousness of the dog in question. Such liability also cannot be waived for the trespass of the dog – stray dogs moving at ease without the restrictions form the owner himself.

Any person who suffers such injuries form dog bites can approach the courts in India, filing for criminal liability of the owner or for civil proceedings depending on the grievousness of the harm so suffered. Several legal provisions are in place in the country tackling such occurrences of dog bites such as the Indian Penal Code 1860 (sections 289 and 338 accordingly).

However, it should be noted that no specific law so far has been put in place to regulate dog bites in India, the strict liability is ascertained from the provisions of the already existing laws and judicial pronouncements in India till date.