Touching someone else s big wolfdog can lead to a fight? Need to lose money?

Personally, I think that if you touch someone else's big wolf dog and cause a fight, you need to lose money, because the other party asks the owner of the big wolf dog to pay compensation, and the owner will find the person who touched the big wolf dog to pay money, and I don't know how to pay it back in law.

I don't think it's needed, but I don't know if you touched the dog without the owner's consent, but I think you just touched the dog, and the two dogs have no way to prove that other people like the dog to touch it twice is the reason why the dog fights, maybe the two dogs themselves often fight, so you don't need compensation.

As long as the dog owner does not ask for compensation, there is no need to worry about this situation, but if you often touch the big wolf dog in the future, causing the wolf dog to fight or even hit the head with blood, you should change this bad behavior habit.

There shouldn't be any need for compensation, and the conflict between dogs and dogs is probably something that people can't solve. Don't get too tangled.

There is no need to pay, the dog is jealous and will not fight to the death.

You touch somebody's big wolfdog, and then the two dogs fight, and they shake. Every time I shake it, my head breaks and I bleed. Do you need to accompany you?

Do you need to lose other people's money? I think the owner of the dog said that if he said that he would definitely lose money, if he didn't say let you. If you lose money, you don't have to lose money.

Such a situation depends on the owner's degree, and if the owner of the dog asks you to compensate, you will be responsible for compensation.

As long as it's a fight. Call three to take a leave of absence. You don't need it when you're not fighting.

Since you are afraid that it will lead to a fight, you are afraid of losing money, why do you still touch people?

You can refuse, you have to comply with it after signing, in case his dog is infected with some infectious diseases, he said that it was because your dog bit his dog and caused his weak constitution, then you also have to pay? Besides, the dog fought before it was not something that people could stop, and you had already borne the loss, and that was enough.

It is determined on the basis of the fault responsibility of the perpetrator. If the owner of the pet dog is also at fault, the liability of the perpetrator can be reduced.

Compensate for the loss, if it is hundreds of thousands and millions of famous dogs, it will be miserable.

Compensation is made on the basis of property in kind.

It is the same as the damage to ordinary items, and the compensation is based on the actual value, and if the circumstances are serious, it may constitute the crime of intentional destruction of property.

Article 78: Animals raised in the house cause harm to others.

The animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability, but if it can be proved that the damage was caused by the infringed party's intention or gross negligence, the liability may not be borne or reduced.

Article 79: Where management provisions are violated by failing to take safety measures against animals and causing harm to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability.

Article 80: Where fierce dogs or other dangerous animals that are prohibited from being raised cause harm to others, the animal keepers or managers shall bear tort liability.

Article 81: Where zoo animals cause harm to others, the zoo shall bear tort liability, but where it can be proved that it has fulfilled its management duties, it shall not be liable.

Article 82: Where abandoned or escaped animals cause harm to others during the period of abandonment or escape, the original animal keeper or manager bears tort liability.

Article 83: Where an animal causes harm to others due to a third party's fault, the infringed party may request compensation from the animal keeper or manager, and may also request compensation from the third party. After the animal keeper or manager makes compensation, he or she has the right to recover compensation from a third party.

Article 84: Raising animals shall abide by the law, respect social morality, and must not interfere with the lives of others.

In this case, if the damage suffered by the victim is caused by the fault of the third party, the animal is actually only a tool for the third party to commit the infringement, and the keeper or manager of the animal is not the cause of the damage, and there is no causal relationship for the occurrence of the damage consequence. In the absence of a causal relationship, tort liability should not be borne, but in order to fully protect the victim and make up for the damage suffered by the victim, the Tort Liability Law stipulates that in such a case, the victim may claim compensation from a third party or the keeper or manager of the animal, and the keeper or manager of the animal has the right to recover from the third party after compensation. In the case of non-genuine joint and several liability, after any one of the persons who are not truly jointly and severally liable has completed the settlement, the victim loses the right to claim compensation from the other persons who are not genuinely jointly and severally liable, but because there is a final liability bearer, the unreal jointly and severally liable person who bears the liquidation liability has the right to recover from the person who ultimately bears the liability for compensation.

Legal basis: Article 83 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China provides that if an animal causes damage to others due to the fault of a third party, the infringed party may claim compensation from the animal keeper or manager, or from the third party. After the animal keeper or manager makes compensation, he or she has the right to recover compensation from a third party.

Article 83 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China provides that if an animal causes damage to others due to the fault of a third party, the infringed party may claim compensation from the animal keeper or manager, or from a third party. After the animal keeper or manager makes compensation, he or she has the right to recover compensation from a third party.

If it's on the card, it's something that belongs to the owner, and if it's lost, you can report it. It doesn't matter if you don't have a card, you can say it is yours, someone else can say it's his.

Civilly, the owner has ownership of the pet, which is legally the property of the individual.

It doesn't matter, if anything, it's the relationship between the owner and the pet.

Affiliation, property relationship, and legal liability for pets causing injury to people and the owner bears strict liability.

Give the chengguan **, he must be responsible for medical expenses and compensation.

No, my Chow Chow is very docile, (in fact, it only sleeps and eats), I suggest that if you have a dog fight there, just say it, the dog bites people and the dog will take care of it.

Then go to court and consult a lawyer first to see what the odds are

According to Article 127 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, "if a raised animal causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear civil liability; Where damage is caused by the fault of the victim, the animal keeper or manager shall not bear civil liability; If it is caused by the fault of a third party, the third party shall bear civil liability. Article 74 of the Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law adopted by the Supreme People's Court in July 1992 provides:

In litigation, the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their own claims. However, in the following tort lawsuits, if the defendant denies the infringement facts raised by the plaintiff, the defendant shall be responsible for adducing evidence: 5 Tort lawsuits for damage caused by raising animals.

Article 4 of the Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings formulated by the Supreme People's Court on 6 December 2001 stipulates that: "The burden of proof shall be borne in accordance with the following provisions in the following tort lawsuits: (5) In tort lawsuits in which animals are raised and cause damage to people, the animal keeper or manager shall bear the burden of proof that the victim is at fault or that a third party is at fault."

This means that it is now a question of the reversal of the burden of proof, that is, 1. The plaintiff has to prove that your dog bit him.

2。Your burden of proof is that the plaintiff is at fault or that the plaintiff was not bitten by your dog.

In this case, all you have to do is find evidence that can prove that the plaintiff kicked your dog, such as witnesses, etc. Otherwise, you will be liable for compensation.

This is more troublesome, did any eyewitnesses see that it was the plaintiff who kicked your dog?

Or is it written in the 110 police record that the plaintiff kicked your dog, so first of all, you have to make it clear, you must pay the family, because you did not pull the dog back in time, if your dog was not chained at that time, the plaintiff would be more advantageous, because the city dog clearly stipulates that it should be tied up.

But once you have the evidence that the plaintiff kicked your dog, you can bear less responsibility, because the plaintiff is also at fault for provoking your dog.

If a witness sees it, who should be invited to testify, and if the plaintiff provokes the dog first and is unwilling to testify in court, it is okay to ask that person to write an explanation and sign it.

Anyway, the goal now is to work towards reducing one's responsibility.

If you look at the general principles of civil law, you must be liable, but you can find witnesses to prove what you said about the fact that he kicked my dog, which is very important to you and can reduce your liability for compensation.

According to Article 78 of the Tort Liability Law.

Where the raised animal causes harm to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability, but if it can be proved that the damage was caused intentionally or by gross negligence on the part of the infringed party, the liability may not be borne or mitigated.

So you only need to find a witness to prove that you are not at fault, and you can reduce or exonerate yourself.

Beijing Borong Law Firm.

You need to be held liable!

Look at your dogs.

All of them are not tied with dog leashes.

There are also no dog tags...

Article 127 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if an animal is raised and causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear civil liability; Where damage is caused by the fault of the victim, the animal keeper or manager shall not bear civil liability; If the damage is caused by the fault of a third party, the third party shall bear civil liability.