May 31, 2010
---------------------
Monday
>>>Welcome visitor, you're not logged in.
Login   Subscribe Now!
Home User Management About Us Chinese
  Bookmark   Download   Print
Search:  serch "Fabao" Window Font Size: Home PageHome PageHome Page
 
Shen v. Gao (Dispute over Liability for Damage Caused by Domestic Animal)——Why Pet Owners Should Be Fully Liable for Damages Caused by Leashed Dogs' Behavior? Court Rules: There Is a Casual Relationship between Animals Harmful Behaviors and Caused Damages
沈某与高某饲养动物损害责任纠纷案——明明牵了狗绳,为什么还要赔钱 法院:动物加害行为与损害结果之间有因果关系 承担全部赔偿责任
【法宝引证码】
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Procedural status: Trial at First Instance
 
  
Shen v. Gao (Dispute over Liability for Damage Caused by Domestic Animal) 沈某与高某饲养动物损害责任纠纷案
——Why Pet Owners Should Be Fully Liable for Damages Caused by Leashed Dogs' Behavior? Court Rules: There Is a Casual Relationship between Animals Harmful Behaviors and Caused Damages ——明明牵了狗绳,为什么还要赔钱 法院:动物加害行为与损害结果之间有因果关系 承担全部赔偿责任
Should the pet owner bear the liability if, while walking the leashed and vaccinated dog, a passerby is startled by his dog and subsequently injured? 遛狗时狗狗戴了牵引绳,平时也接种过疫苗,却因惊吓路人致他人受伤,宠物主人是否要担责?
[Case Review] 【案情回放】
One day, Ms. Gao took her dog for a walk after putting it on a leash. The relatively long leash led to a noticeable distance between her and her dog. As the dog moved ahead onto the road, Ms. Shen happened to be passing by on her electric bicycle. Startled by the dog's sudden appearance, Ms. Shen fell from her electric bicycle, resulting in multiple fractures and joint dislocations throughout her body. 一天,高某为爱犬佩戴好牵引绳后,出门遛狗散步。由于绳子长度较长,爱犬和高某之间有一小段距离。犬只先行步入马路的时候,恰逢沈某驾驶电瓶车路过。沈某被马路上突然窜出的犬只惊吓到,从电瓶车上摔倒,导致身体多处骨折及关节脱位。
...... 经公安机关认定,沈某摔倒受伤不属于道路交通事故。
 后经鉴定,沈某构成十级伤残,并需要相应的休息期、营养期、护理期。
 沈某认为,其以正常速度驾驶电瓶车,因被犬只惊吓而受伤,所产生的损失理应由犬只饲养人高某承担。
 但高某认为,她已为爱犬佩戴了牵引绳,尽到了注意义务,不同意赔偿。
 于是,沈某向上海市普陀区人民法院(以下简称“普陀区人民法院”)起诉,要求高某赔付其医疗费、住院伙食补助费、交通费等各项费用。
 【以案说法】
 普陀区人民法院经审理认为,饲养动物损害责任纠纷适用无过错责任原则。事发时,被告所持的牵引绳较长,犬只与被告之间存在较大的间距,导致犬只先行进入道路。而原告驾驶车辆经过时,突然察觉犬只而紧急制动,导致摔倒。沈某的受伤与高女士爱犬的行为有因果关系。高某又未能举证证明沈某存在故意或重大过失,应对沈某的合理损失承担全部赔偿责任。
 普陀区人民法院判决被告高某赔偿原告沈某医疗费、住院伙食补助费、护理费、营养费、交通费、残疾赔偿金、鉴定费、精神损害抚慰金、律师代理费共计19万余元。
 ......



Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com


 


您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区,如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户,请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询;
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com


     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝www.lawinfochina.com
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code!
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials.
 
Home | Products and Services | FAQ | Disclaimer | Chinese | Site Map
©2012 Chinalawinfo Co., Ltd.    database@chinalawinfo.com  Tel: +86 (10) 8268-9699  京ICP证010230-8