[imagesource:here]

Check out just about any community forum page on Facebook, or neighbourhood WhatsApp group, and you’ll find debates about whether or not dog owners should be mandated to keep their pets on a leash when outside of their gardens.

Those often extend into debates about who should be held responsible if a pup goes rogue and bites or hurts someone.

Well, that debate is legally over, thanks to a new ruling in the Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) in the case of Van Meyeren versus Cloete.

According to the judgement handed down on Friday, September 11, by the SCA, this is what led to the court case:

At around 3PM on Saturday, February 18, 2017, Gerald Cloete (below), a gardener and refuse collector, was on his way to the shops, pulling the trolley he uses to collect trash down a street in Port Elizabeth.

For no reason and without warning, he was attacked by three dogs owned by Christiaan Van Meyeren.

They savaged Mr Cloete to such an extent that neighbours who came to the scene thought he was dead. He survived, but his left arm was amputated as a result of his injuries.

Cloete took Van Meyeren to court to claim damages. Van Meyeren lost that case and tried to appeal the decision in the SCA. His appeal was rejected, which is something that all dog owners need to take note of.

Image: Karen van Rooyen

The ruling has set in place a precedent for dog owners, should they find themselves in a similar situation to Van Meyeren.

BusinessTech explains that the ruling was based on a legal principle that dates back to Roman Law, which holds that the owner of an animal is held responsible for the actions of that animal.

If your domesticated pet was outside of your property and attacks someone, the injured person is entitled to claim damages from the owner.

The ruling also outlines three circumstances in which the pet owner may not be held responsible for the actions of the pet:

• That the injured party was in a place where they had no right to be (such as private property)
• The animal was provoked either by the injured party or a third party (if someone was egging your pet on, then it’s likely that it would attack)
• That custody and control of the animal has passed to a third party who negligently failed to prevent the animal from causing the harm (a dog walker for example, who takes a dog off its leash)

The court stated that anyone should be able to walk the street without fear of being attacked by dogs.

More from the judgement:

Many people in South Africa choose to own animals for companionship and protection. That is their choice, but responsibilities follow in its wake. Whatever anthropomorphic concepts underpin pauperien liability, the reality is that animals can cause harm to people and property in various ways.

When they do so and the victim of their actions is innocent of fault for the harm they have caused, the interests of justice require that as between the owner and the injured party it is the owner who should be held liable for that harm.

In other words, if you want to avoid the risk of being held responsible for any harm your hound may cause, check your gates to make sure that your dog can’t escape, and when you’re out for a walk, keep him or her on a leash if there are other people or dogs around.

Failing that, if things go wrong, you could find yourself paying someone an extremely large sum of money.

[sources:sca&bussinesstech]