Legal People Needed!

[superminty]

The parts of this are covered under civil law and criminal law.

Criminal Law (Breach of Law/Regulations)

Where a law is broken (that's the dog being off leash) then the council/controlling body would/should fine the owner of the animal off leash (the police could even be able to lay criminal charges in the event of a serious incident).

Civil Law (damages)

Recovery of costs where your dog is attacked and injured is covered by civil law and it's up to you to take legal action for recovery of costs. Your recovery claim is easier to argue given that the defendant was in breach of the law.

Legal Aid can advise on this one.

Excellent, thanks for that, I shall approach my research from that angle.

I was thinking that in the event of the on-lead dog causing damage to the off-lead dog, there would certainly be liability for damages on the part of the on-lead dog's owner, but perhaps that liability would be mitigated by the fact that the off-lead dog's owner is breaking the law.

I just don't want to be one of those letter writers that goes off half-c**ked and makes unsubstantiated claims

[poodlefan]

[

I was thinking that in the event of the on-lead dog causing damage to the off-lead dog, there would certainly be liability for damages on the part of the on-lead dog's owner, but perhaps that liability would be mitigated by the fact that the off-lead dog's owner is breaking the law.

Mitigation means factors that reduce the severity of punishment. Not applicable to damages claims

Not every breach of the law is a criminal offence - to be "criminal" an offence has to be indictable ie. prosecutable before a judge and jury and/or punishable by 12 months or more imprisonment. Walking your dog offlead in an onlead area won't get over that bar.

As I said, steer clear of the legalities - its a minefield.

Oh and don't bother calling Legal Aid for help with a claim for damages. Head straight for the Small Claims Courts.

Edited October 8, 2010 by poodlefan

[Aidan]

There isn't a clear-cut law that protects the owner of a dog on-leash because plenty of dogs on-leash are unsafe and a danger to the public.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

This is the city of Melbourne (council) regs.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ForResiden...ingyourdog.aspx

Dogs must be kept under control by means of a chain, cord or leash, which is no more than three metres in length.

So that applies to everywhere except private property where the dog has permission to be from the owner, and to designated off leash parks. The off leash park laws are a bit vague but this is specific - no rushing up to other dogs without permission from their owners. If only.

When your dog is off-leash, do not let it rush up to other dogs to play as other dogs may react with fear. Always ask other dog owners if their dog is sociable and if it is ok to allow your dog to approach. This is the polite and best way to meet and greet your fellow dog owners.

If your dog does not return to you when you call it or you have difficulty controlling your dogs behaviour around other dogs, you should never let your dog off its leash. Remember you must have effective control of your dog when it is off-leash.

[superminty]

There isn't a clear-cut law that protects the owner of a dog on-leash because plenty of dogs on-leash are unsafe and a danger to the public.

My emphasis above: I agree and that's another reason I get so mad at people who walk their dogs off lead. How are they to know what the on-lead dog is like? They are putting their dogs in harms way, in addition to the risk from traffic and it's so bl**dy unfair on the dog.

[AmandaJ]

[

I was thinking that in the event of the on-lead dog causing damage to the off-lead dog, there would certainly be liability for damages on the part of the on-lead dog's owner, but perhaps that liability would be mitigated by the fact that the off-lead dog's owner is breaking the law.

Mitigation means factors that reduce the severity of punishment. Not applicable to damages claims

Not every breach of the law is a criminal offence - to be "criminal" an offence has to be indictable ie. prosecutable before a judge and jury and/or punishable by 12 months or more imprisonment. Walking your dog offlead in an onlead area won't get over that bar.

As I said, steer clear of the legalities - its a minefield.

Oh and don't bother calling Legal Aid for help with a claim for damages. Head straight for the Small Claims Courts.

Small Claims court is a very inexpensive place to argue a case - no lawyers are permitted and depending on the state your claim can go as high as 50k - but generally you would claim for actual expenses (vet, medication, bandages, care) and some for punitive damages - ie stress, loss of enjoyment while the dog recovers.

[Vizsla]

My interpretation of the Domestic Animal Act is that owner or person in charge (as the case requires) of a dog which attacks is liable for an offense under Section 29. There is no exemption under this section relating to the attacking dog (if on lead) being approached by an off leash dog in an on lead area.

Each Council has the power under Section 26 of the Domestic Animals Act as well as the Local Government Act to make an order/local laws in relation to on and off leash area within their Municipality.

You can find more info about the legislation at www.dpi.vic.gov.au/animalwelfare

[piperspal]

Watching this thread with interest as I was walking the 4 dogs (all on leads) and had another dog come right up to the point when i had my leg in front of its head to stop it coming any closer. The stupid owner (and yes I think she is a tool) kept saying 'but he's friendly'. In the end I said to her that if she didnt call her dog off I was going to kick it in the head, at which point she got huffy and grabbed her dog. My dogs are reasonably friendly, but I dont like the chances of no-one getting hurt if there was a scuffle. I had mine off to the side of the track to give her room to pass too.

Tossers!!!!

[sas]

We had a similar problem in our last neighbour, as the onlead dog we were protected so the Council said, we made a number of complaints to Council - they did very little....we moved....happy now.

[AmandaJ]

SA Dog and Cat Mgt ...

Part 6—Civil actions relating to dogs

65—Ownership and responsibility for control of dogs in civil actions

In civil proceedings relating to injury, damage, loss or nuisance caused by a dog,

questions of ownership or responsibility for the control of the dog will be determined

as if the proceedings were criminal proceedings under this Act.

1.2.2010—Dog and Cat Management Act 1995

Civil actions relating to dogs—Part 6

[9.2.2010] This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 39

66—Liability for dogs1

(1) The keeper of a dog is liable in tort for injury, damage or loss caused by the dog.

(2) It is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish—

(a) negligence; or

(b) knowledge of the dog's vicious, dangerous or mischievous propensity.

(3) However, the keeper's liability is subject to the following qualifications:

(a) if the injury, damage or loss results from provocation of the dog by a person

other than the keeper, the keeper's liability (if any) will be decided according

to the Wrongs Act 1936 principles;

(b) if the injury, damage or loss results from an attack on the dog by an animal

for the control of which the keeper is not responsible, the keeper's liability (if

any) will be decided according to the Wrongs Act 1936 principles;

(c ) if the injury, damage or loss is caused to a trespasser on land on which the

dog is kept, the keeper's liability (if any) will be decided according to the

Wrongs Act 1936 principles;

(d) if the injury, damage or loss is caused while the dog is being used in the

reasonable defence of a person or property, the keeper's liability (if any) will

be determined according to the Wrongs Act 1936 principles;

(e) if the injury, damage or loss is caused while the dog is in the possession or

control of a person without the keeper's consent, the keeper's liability (if any)

will be determined according to the Wrongs Act 1936 principles;

(f) the keeper's liability (if any) is subject to any other defence available under

the law of tort.

(4) If the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the injury, damage or loss, the damages will

be reduced to the extent the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the

plaintiff's share in responsibility for injury, damage or loss. - ed..This can go both ways - plaintiff and defendant

(5) In this section—

keeper of a dog means the owner of the dog, or if the owner is under 18 years of age,

the child's parents or guardians, and includes a person into whose possession the dog

has been delivered;

provocation means—

(a) teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog;

(b) any act of cruelty towards the dog;

© attacking the owner of the dog, or a person towards whom the dog could

reasonably be expected to be protective, in front of the dog.

Dog and Cat Management Act 1995—1.2.2010

Part 6—Civil actions relating to dogs

40 This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 [9.2.2010]

Note—

1 At common law, the keeper of an animal was strictly liable for injury caused by the

animal if the animal was ferae naturae (ie an undomesticated animal). If the animal was

mansuetae naturae (ie a domestic animal), liability was dependent on proof of scienter

(ie knowledge of the animal's dangerous or mischievous propensity). These rules were

abolished by Part 3 of the Civil Liability Act 1936 which provides that negligence is the

basis of liability. This section, however, qualifies the Civil Liability Act 1936 principles

by imposing strict liability in relation to dogs subject, however, to statutory

qualifications.

67—Court's power to make orders relating to dogs in civil actions

In civil proceedings relating to injury, damage, loss or nuisance caused by a dog, the

court may make any order that a court could make if the proceedings were criminal

proceedings under this Act (and the order takes effect as if it had been made in such

proceedings).

[mita]

Good advice & info, AmandaJ & Poodlefan. Many thanks. It's good stuff to squirrel away for future reference.