Who is responsible for dog bites How to divide the responsibility for dog bites

1 The responsibility for being bitten by someone else's dog should be the owner of the dog, and being bitten by his own dog can only bear it himself.

2. No matter what the reason is (except for special circumstances, such as the owner encounters a gangster, and the dog bites the gangster in order to protect the owner), your own domestic dog bites or scratches others, and you should bear a certain amount of responsibility. Because you are the owner of the dog, you can also say that you are the guardian of the dog, so there is a certain amount of responsibility. The usual domestication of dogs is very important, one is for the dog to be docile and not defecate anywhere, and some dogs can also train him to help people do some things, and the second is to train dogs to be obedient, not to bark, not to bite at will, but to protect the owner when the owner is threatened.

3. It is very dangerous to be bitten by a dog, and it is very likely to cause the bitten person to be infected with rabies, so usually raise a dog, walk the dog, do not let go of it at will, and keep it in a cage at home so as not to hurt the family.

Under normal circumstances, if a dog bites a person, the breeder or manager shall bear civil liability, but if the damage is caused by the fault of the victim, the keeper or manager shall not bear civil liability, and if the damage is caused by the fault of a third party, the third party shall bear civil liability.

Bear the corresponding tort liability.

According to the law, the act of causing damage to a person by an animal is a special tort, and the principle of attribution in this type of case is the principle of no-fault liability, that is, as long as there is a causal relationship between the damage result and the actor, the tort liability must be borne, and the burden of proof in the lawsuit is also borne by the actor, that is, the dog owner.

If the dog bites a person due to the fault of a third party, the third party can be required to compensate, or the keeper or manager can be required to compensate, but after the keeper or manager has compensated, there is the right to recover from the third party.

Legal analysis: It can only be dealt with as an accident in law, and both parties should bear the corresponding civil liability for this incident. However, the handling shall be carried out in accordance with the principle of fairness provided by law, taking full and comprehensive consideration of the evidence and relevant facts of both parties.

Dear, how do you divide responsibilities between dogs and dogs? The principle of "no-fault liability" is applied. At the time of the accident, the dog was actually controlled and managed by the dog, and the principle of attribution of liability for damage caused by the animal is no-fault liability, the animal keeper shall bear part of the loss in accordance with the law.

Ask what part of the liability is to compensate.

1.Medical expenses for the injured dog. This is because of the direct costs incurred by the infringement, which of course must be compensated by the owner of the dog that caused the accident.

The specific amount of compensation should be based on the bill that actually incurs the expenses. If the court divides the proportion of liability, the defendant only needs to compensate according to the proportion of his own liability. 2.

Lost time pay for the injured dog owner. If the owner of the injured dog really needs to take leave to take care of the dog, which affects the work, then it is necessary to provide proof of leave, a penalty for salary deduction due to leave, or evidence to prove that the dog really needs to be taken care of by the dog owner. The defendant can also be compensated for this part of the expenses.

3.Travelling expenses. It is true that because of the dog's **, there are certain necessary transportation expenses, and the defendant can be required to compensate if the plaintiff provides evidence to substantiate it.

4.Solatium for moral damages. According to the law, only those who infringe on items of specific commemorative significance can claim compensation for moral damages, and the court has very strict moral restrictions when determining it.

The injured party can provide relevant evidence to prove it, and the court will make a decision.

Summary. The first case.

If the raised animal causes damage to a person, the keeper or manager of the animal shall bear tort liability.

How to divide responsibilities between dogs and dogs.

In the first case, if the animal raised causes damage to a person, the keeper or manager of the animal shall bear tort liability.

In the second case, if the damage caused by the animal is caused by the victim's intention or gross negligence, the owner's liability can be reduced, and the keeper may not even be liable for compensation.

In the third case, the animal attacks the person because of the third party, and at this time, both the keeper and the third party shall be liable for compensation.

In the fourth case, if the abandoned animal is unscrupulous and dissipates the envy, or the animal that escaped due to poor management takes a photograph and injures people outside, the original keeper shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation.

In the fifth case, if the breeder is raising a fierce animal that is prohibited by the state, such as a Tibetan mastiff, a German shepherd dog, an Argentine Dogo dog, etc., no matter what the cause of the damage, the animal keeper must be liable.

How to compensate for the bite of a big dog and a small dog.

When both parties are on a leash.

The big dog bites the small dog and needs to be compensated, and the court will clearly oblige Li to bear the issue, and the responsibility is the most basic issue in the tort dispute, that is, to determine who is at fault in this matter, and how much responsibility should be borne by the witness.

Specific to the dog-eat-dog case of ambush, generally speaking, it depends on whether the owners of both parties have fulfilled their management responsibilities skillfully, and the old royal key party who has not fulfilled its responsibilities will naturally bear the liability for compensation. If both parties are at fault, it is up to the judge to determine the proportion of responsibility for both parties based on the actual circumstances of the case.

How much will I have to pay for the compensation?

Hello, you need to compensate the puppy for medical expenses and nutrition expenses first, and you also need to compensate the owner for the damage.

Around 2,000 yuan does not include medical expenses and medical expenses.

Do I have to pay the full amount of my medical expenses?

The injured dog has a provocation that leads to being bitten.

Yes, compensation is needed regardless of provocation.

It's because big dogs are a strong group for small dogs.

Is it necessary to compensate in full if the pet ** inspection fee is unreasonable?

Yes, full compensation is required.

Legal Analysis: First of all, animals are things and property. Where a dog bites a dog and is injured, causing damage to the property of others, the other party may be required to pay compensation for damages in accordance with law. Where civil rights and interests are infringed, the infringed party has the right to request that the infringer bear tort liability.

The standard for attributing liability for dog bites is: if the animal is raised and causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear civil liability, and if the damage is caused by the fault of the victim, the keeper or manager of the animal shall not bear civil liability; Where damage is caused by the fault of a third party, the third party shall bear civil liability. That is to say, if the animal caused damage to others, the keeper or manager of the animal shall bear the tort liability, but if it can be proved that the damage was caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the infringed party, the liability may not be borne or reduced.

1. What is the scope of compensation for damage caused by animals?

The damage caused by animals to humans is often multifaceted, mainly in the following situations:

1. Simple property damage. For example, utensils and objects are damaged by animal impacts.

2. Causing temporary damage to the person. Such as being chased by an animal and causing a sprained foot, being bitten by an animal to a muscle, etc.

3. Causing permanent damage to the person. Such as disabling or leaving permanent unsightly scars in prominent areas.

4. Causing death.

The scope of compensation is different depending on the consequences of the damage caused.

1. If simple property damage is caused, only compensation for the direct loss is required.

2. Where temporary damage is caused to the person, the victim needs a certain period of time to recover, and in addition to compensation for direct losses, it shall also include medical care expenses paid, lost wages or other income.

3. If permanent injury is caused to the person, compensation shall be made for medical care expenses, lost wages or other income, and living allowance for the disabled according to the specific degree of injury.

4. In the case of death, it will also involve medical expenses, funeral expenses, solatium payments, and the living expenses of the victim's former dependents (such as parents and minor children who have lost the ability to work).

2. What is the division of responsibility for pet bites?

1. If the animal is raised and causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear the tort liability, but if it can be proved that the damage was caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the infringed party, the liability may not be borne or reduced.

2. If the animal violates the management regulations and fails to take safety measures for the animal and causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability.

3. If a dangerous animal such as a fierce dog that is prohibited from being raised causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability.

4. If the animals in the zoo cause damage to others, the zoo shall bear the tort liability, but if it can prove that it has fulfilled its management duties, it shall not be liable.

5. Where an abandoned or escaped animal causes damage to others during the period of abandonment or escape, the original animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability.

6. Where 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.

Under normal circumstances, the principle of "who asserts, who adduces" is implemented. In the case of tort, the victim has to prove that he or she has suffered damage, the extent of his damage, the cause of his damage, and who caused the damage. In addition, the evidence adduced should also meet the requirements of authenticity, legitimacy and relevance as much as possible.

Only in this way can the legitimate rights of the two sides be safeguarded after the two sides enter the judicial process in the process of negotiation. Otherwise, even if the damage suffered by oneself is objective, it is possible that one may bear the legal consequences that are unfavorable to oneself due to insufficient evidence.

In the case of damage caused by a raised animal, the keeper and manager of the animal are not in any case liable in whole or in part. According to the laws of our country, the liability of the animal keeper or manager shall be mitigated or exempted from the damage caused by the fault of the victim or the fault of a third party. Thus, liability can be mitigated or exempted if the keeper or manager of the animal can prove that the damage was caused by the fault of the victim or the fault of a third party.

It can be seen that in such cases, the burden of proof is reversed, that is, the defendant is put on the burden of proof, otherwise he will have to bear adverse legal consequences.

Article 1245 of the Civil Code Where an animal raised causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability; However, 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 be waived or mitigated.

Article 1246:Where management regulations are violated by failing to take safety measures against animals and causing harm to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability; However, if it can be proved that the damage was intentionally caused by the infringed party, the liability can be mitigated.

Article 1249:Where an abandoned or escaped animal causes harm to others during the period of abandonment or escape, the original keeper or manager of the animal bears tort liability.

Article 1250: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.

1. What are the constitutive elements of harm caused by raising animals?

1. It is the independent action or instinctive behavior of raising animals that causes damage to people. Injury caused by raising animals refers to damage caused by actions or instinctive behaviors performed independently by animals without being forced or driven by humans.

2. The raised animal has caused damage to others. The fact of causing damage to another person must exist in order for liability for harm caused by animals to arise. The consequences of damage here include property damage and personal injury.

3. There must be a causal relationship between the harm caused by the animal and the fact of damage. The causal relationship here refers to the causal relationship between the infringement of the animal and the result of the damage, that is, the personal injury or property damage suffered by the victim must be caused by the infringement of the animal.