RESTRAINT LAWS AND LIABILITY

The picture relating to liability for any accidents, injuries and nuisance caused by dogs-at-large looks simple. The key term is duty of care. The key person is the owner.

When a person signs on the line in registering their dog, they are officially saying: ëI am the owner of this dog. The duty of care is mine. The buck stops with me.í It is perfectly reasonable to anchor the duty (responsibility) with the owner. Who else in logic or law qualifies? As we pointed out in the last chapter, this is one of the most important reasons for dog registration. Registration provides the owner link. It also confronts the owner with the reality of their duty of care as an owner.

Some dog owners step around their responsibility by adopting a not-my-fault attitude when things donít work out. People in MPM hear it all the time. (See: Not my fault!)

Later in this chapter we will discuss free-run parks. But for the moment, let us consider the situation that applies in normal suburban streets and other such public areas.

The community expects victims to be able to claim damages that they suffer because of someone elseís negligence. When the damage is caused by a dog-at-large, the owner is the person who has been negligent. For restraint laws to capture this community expectation:

1. it should be an offence for a dog to be at large

2. the owner of a dog that is allowed to be at large should be considered to have behaved negligently

3. in the event of the dog causing any kind of damage while at large, the owner should be liable for those damages

As long as the community has been made aware of the restraint laws, then there are only three questions to be asked in the case of a dog-at-large incident (photograph):

1. Was the dog in fact at large?

2. Is the registered owner of the dog known?

3. Did the dog cause damage or injury while at large?

If ëYesí to (1), thatís an infringement in its own right. If ëYesí to (2), the party responsible is legally identified. If ëYesí to (3), damages can be awarded.

If ëYesí to all three, there is, by this pathway, no need to debate anything other than the extent and value of the damage caused. The offence has been established and the rest flows from that automatically.

If ëYesí to (3), but ëNoí to (2), the dog can legitimately be impounded as an unowned stray. If the dog is claimed by somebody who says they are the owner, the case can proceed with the added infringement associated with non-registration.