sa国际传媒淥ne might think it reasonable that pet owners should simply be responsible for personal injury or property damage caused by their pets.sa国际传媒�

That common sense notion was expressed by the Honourable Judge Ted Gouge in Carr v. Johnston, 2016 BCPC 181 before he started reviewing our outdated laws.

The unleashed pet in that case had jumped up and against a car, causing paint damage costing $1,529.72 to repair.

Thatsa国际传媒檚 one end of a spectrum. The other end is the unleashed pet that ripped apart the face of a 76 year old Osoyoos woman on April 7, 2020.

The most common damage I hear about is an off leash dog attacking a smaller, leashed one, the leashed dog sometimes dying even after hundreds of dollars of vet bills.

No owner intends for their dog to cause harm.

Itsa国际传媒檚 a matter of risk.

An owner has complete control over the risk that their dog ownership will cause harm.

The starting point is the choice of dog. Dogs come in all sizes, breeds and temperaments. Owning a larger, more rambunctious or more aggressive dog poses a higher risk than a smaller, more docile one.

And the owner has complete control over how much time and effort is put into training and socializing their pet. The more highly trained and socialized, the less risk that a dog will jump up on a car or attack another dog or a person.

Most importantly, an owner has complete control over their dogsa国际传媒檚 opportunity to cause harm.

A properly restrained dog cannot jump up on a car or person. And cannot attack. A muzzled dog cannot bite.

How could the law work any other way, than for a dog owner to simply be responsible for personal injury or property damage caused by their pet?

When it comes to an attack, thatsa国际传媒檚 the law in Ontario. The Dog Ownerssa国际传媒� Liability Act section 2(1), says simply: sa国际传媒淭he owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animalsa国际传媒�.

The legislation has common sense exceptions. For example, you cannot claim against an owner if you are bitten while committing a criminal offence on the ownersa国际传媒檚 property!

But in British Columbia, we are stuck with outdated laws we inherited from English courts.

The outdated law does not hold a dog owner accountable unless the victim can prove that the owner was aware of the dangerous disposition of their particular pet.

In most situations, thatsa国际传媒檚 a practical impossibility.

Yousa国际传媒檙e on a walk with your properly leashed puppy. A large, unleashed dog attacks, tearing your puppy apart. The unleashed dogsa国际传媒檚 owner says: sa国际传媒淢y dog has never behaved like that beforesa国际传媒�. How could you possibly prove them wrong?

And why should you have to?

They had 100 percent control of the risk their dog ownership posed to you and others around them.

They could have chosen a smaller, more docile pet. They could have chosen to spend more time and energy training and socialising their dog. They could have simply kept their dog on a leash.

Even if they were a model dog owner. Even if they had absolutely no idea that their dog would behave that way. They chose to take the risk and had complete control over managing it. Shouldnsa国际传媒檛 they be ones paying your vet bills?

Would you sign a petition to update our laws like Ontario has?

Missed last weeksa国际传媒檚 column?

HERGOTT: Accountability of being a pet owner

About Paul Hergott, Personal Injury Lawyer:

Paul began practicing law in 1995 in a general litigation practice. Of the various areas of litigation, he became most drawn to and passionate about pursuing fair compensation for personal injury victims, which has gradually became his exclusive area of practice. Paulsa国际传媒檚 practice is restricted to acting only for the injured victim, never for ICBC nor for other insurance companies.

Instagram:

Facebook:

Twitter:

YouTube:

Like us on and follow us on .