In recent years, more and more people like to raise dogs. Some dog owners believe that raising a dog can kill two birds with one stone. It can accompany the owner when he is at home, and can watch the house and guard the door when the owner goes out...
In recent years, more and more people like to raise dogs. Some dog owners believe that raising a dog can kill two birds with one stone. It can accompany the owner when he is at home, and can watch the house and guard the door when the owner goes out. Subsequently, it is also common for thieves to claim compensation after being bitten by dogs after breaking into houses. So, if a thief breaks into a house while the head of the household is not at home and is bitten by the head of the household's dog, does the head of the household need to compensate? According to reports, Zhao liked an ancient calligraphy and painting collected by Qian very much and wanted to buy it at a high price, but Qian refused to sell it, so Zhao became suspicious. One day, Zhao secretly sneaked into Qian's home when Qian was not at home, intending to steal the ancient calligraphy and paintings collected by Qian. Unexpectedly, a big dog raised in Qian's home pounced on him. Zhao was caught off guard and was bitten to pieces by the dog. He managed to escape. Zhao spent more than RMB 30,000 in various expenses to treat the trauma caused by the dog bite.
Zhao sued the court for being bitten by Qian's dog, demanding compensation from Qian. After the trial, the court came up with two different opinions: The first opinion was that Qian should compensate. The reason is that Qian is the dog's breeder and should bear the responsibility of the manager. According to the law, if a raised animal causes damage to another person, the animal keeper or manager shall bear civil liability; if the 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. Although Zhao is a thief, Qian failed to take good care of his dog and caused Zhao to be injured. His behavior was at fault and he should bear certain liability for compensation. The second opinion is that Qian should not be compensated. The reason is that Zhao was accidentally injured during his crime, and
should bear full responsibility for his illegal behavior. The dog raised by Qian has been registered with the relevant authorities, and keeping the dog at home will not pose a threat to others. Qian could not have foreseen Zhao's burglary and was not at fault, so he should not be liable for compensation. The author supports the second opinion. In this case, Zhao entered Qian’s home to steal on his own initiative. His behavior was not only obviously wrong but also suspected of a crime. Qian had complete dog-raising procedures and managed it properly. He had no fault subjectively and therefore should not be liable for compensation. What do you think about this? Please leave a message in the comment area.
Source: Baijiahao
