Henan Daily client reporter Zhang Mengmeng
Editor's note: Anyang's "dog bites" incident has touched everyone's heart. With the report of the results finally coming to an end, there are many people keeping pets in real life, and accidents of cats and dogs biting people happen from time to time. If merchants illegally keep dogs in the mall, and the mall fails to fulfill its supervision obligations, resulting in accidents involving dogs biting children, who should bear the responsibility?
Recently, the Jiaozuo Intermediate Court heard a dog bite case to see how the judge determined liability.
Case facts: A boy was bitten by a dog in a mall
9-year-old Liangliang (pseudonym) lives in Shanyang District. On the afternoon of October 30, 2020, Liangliang, led by his grandfather Zhao, went to a mall located in the east section of Renmin Road to buy school supplies.
At around 17:00 that day, Liangliang told her grandfather that she needed to go to the toilet. While Liangliang was going to the toilet, Zhao rode his electric bike around from another door and then went to the place where Liangliang was going to the toilet to wait. However, Liangliang didn't wait for his grandfather when he came out of the toilet, so he went to the west gate of the mall to wait alone.
At this moment, a yellow native dog pounced on Liangliang and bit him, and then the dog ran out of the west gate. Zhao arrived and immediately called the police. Later, Liangliang was sent to a nearby community health service center for treatment, which cost a total of 3,038 yuan in medical expenses.
During the police visit, they learned that on the morning of October 29, 2020, the dog bit an underage child from another merchant on the arm and face at the entrance of the mall. Through everyone's inspection and surveillance, the two victims' family members and other staff unanimously identified the dog that bit the person and believed that the dog that bit the person was raised by Wang and Sun, the merchants of the mall.
As a result, Liangliang and his guardian filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting that the dog breeders Wang and Sun and the mall operator be jointly and severally compensated for 3,058 yuan in medical expenses, 1,500 yuan in remedial tuition fees, 600 yuan in nutritional expenses, 200 yuan in transportation expenses, and 2,000 yuan in mental damage compensation, for a total of 7,358 yuan.
Judgment: The merchant compensates 70%, and the mall compensates 30%.
Wang and Sun argued that the coat color of the dog that bit the person was inconsistent with the coat color of the dog they raised at home, so they should not bear legal liability. The person in charge of the mall believes that the mall has no right to interfere with merchants keeping pets.
The court of first instance held that the evidence cited by Liangliang was insufficient to prove that the animals raised by Wang and Sun caused his personal injuries, and there was no causal relationship; the court required the mall to assume the obligation to protect personal safety, which exceeded reasonable limits, and therefore rejected Liangliang's lawsuit.
Liangliang and his guardian believe that the color of the same dog photographed with different electronic equipment is different. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the dogs that bit people do not belong to Wang and Sun; the mall failed to fulfill its obligation to manage and protect public safety. Therefore, he appealed to Jiaozuo Intermediate People's Court and asked for a change of sentence.
The Jiaozuo Intermediate People’s Court combined the evidentiary materials and defense opinions submitted by the parties in the first instance, and by comparing physical characteristics, inspecting activity trajectories, and the police reception status of the public security organs, it was able to confirm that the dog that bit Liang Liang was raised by the appellees Wang and Sun. In the end, the Jiaozuo Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance verdict: Liangliang's medical expenses were 3,038 yuan, nutritional expenses were 100 yuan, transportation expenses were 50 yuan, and spiritual comfort payments were 1,000 yuan, totaling 4,188 yuan. Wang and Sun compensated 70%, or 2,931.6 yuan, and the mall compensated 30%, or 1,256.4 yuan.
Statement: The mall should bear supplementary liability
The court held that this case is a dispute over the liability for damage caused by raising animals and the liability of managers of public places. Liangliang was bitten by a dog raised by Wang and Sun. The evidence is sufficient and should be recognized.
Regarding the civil liability of Wang and Sun. Wang and Sun illegally kept dogs in densely populated places like the mall, without taking any control and safety measures, and allowed the dogs to patrol in and out of the mall, causing the child Liangliang to be bitten and causing mental damage to him. According to Article 78 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China: "If the raised animals cause 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 of the infringed party, the liability may be waived or reduced." Article 79 stipulates: "In violation of management regulations and failure to take safety measures for animals that cause damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability." Wang and Sun should be liable for compensation for the losses suffered by Liangliang.
Regarding the division of responsibilities of the mall. As an operator and manager, the mall should bear reasonable guarantee obligations for the personal safety of the relevant public. However, the mall neglected to fulfill its safety guarantee obligations and allowed merchants to keep dogs and dogs without taking safety precautions to enter and leave the mall without discouraging them. Therefore, the mall should bear corresponding supplementary compensation liability for the loss of the victim Liangliang. According to Article 1198 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: "Operators and managers of hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, sports venues, entertainment venues and other business venues, public places or organizers of mass activities who fail to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations and cause damage to others shall bear tort liability." Therefore, Liangliang's losses were 70% borne by Wang and Sun, and 30% by the mall.