If a dog attacks a person, is the owner of the animal responsible for the negligent injury, even if it is not present at the time of the attack? And again, does animal ownership have a “status sine qua non” because there is criminal liability for the crime of injury?
By translating these questions into “legitimate” language, the question raises concerns about the possibility of a dog owner being held accountable for at least one of the offenses due to the causal link between the conduct and the harmful incident. Or – and otherwise – (criminal) liability assumptions are required that the dog owner must have the potential to influence causation in any case.
The incident is nothing more than theoretical and numerous arrests have been made by jurisprudence. Let’s start with the most recent one, to my knowledge and mentioned in the sentence of Criminal Cassation n.9024/2022 . I’ll try to outline what can be called an integrated adaptation.
A two-year-old boy, led by his daughter (Tizia), attacked Caia’s dog while walking, at that age. Investigated for criminal injury, Caia failed to challenge the dog’s preventive seizure, first before Justice of the Peace and then before a review court. He appealed to the Supreme Court, highlighting how he regularly kept the dog indoors and at work at the time of the attack. So he can’t have the ability to warn and control the dog walking with his daughter Tizia.
The court, on the other hand, shares the review court’s argument acknowledging Caia’s negligence Because an inappropriate person did not prevent the dog from being taken out of the house (The girl, as a cohabitant, indicated that according to one witness, the child would have been “horrified” in the face of aggression by the dog.) And ignores prescriptions provided by veterinary services (With mouth) Despite multiple attacks already carried out by dogs.
Punishment of Criminal Cassation No. (now ancient).34765/2008.
Husband and wife, co-owners of the same dog, are condemned in the first instance for the crime of negligent trauma by their pet for harming the child. The appellate court acquitted the husband after confirming his wife’s sentence. The motive of the appellate court by which the husband is acquitted is fundamental for the purpose of understanding the whole examination, since The latter intervened when the child had already been bitten How to condemn the court’s conviction that s’s crime has been established in this wayBased on the title of the dog alone.
Indeed, the second judge mentioned for the Supreme Court would violate the motivation industry. According to 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code Preventing an event that you have a legal obligation to prevent is tantamount to causing it. How the husband was at home at the time of the attack and he ran away when he heard the screams of his wife and the mother of the affected child, to make arrangements to stop the dog, the Supreme Court confirmed the obligation to control the dog. By law falls on her master, and therefore also to her husband. In fact iThe man who dominated the animal was forced to stop his wife from going out with the dog. As well as‘Obligation to verify departure with due diligence (Mouth, ribs), caution Which was not accepted.
So it is the husband’s responsibility It was not responsible for the strict liability (And therefore conflicts with the first paragraph of Article 40 of the Italian Criminal Code) Obligation is therefore linked from the position of guarantee to the fact that he is the only person who can control his reaction.. This is followed by the cancellation of the sentence with suspension for a new test.
Among these two judgments (n.9024/2022 and 34765/2008) there are a few more which I will summarize below.3
Cass. Pen n 36151/21: TheThe owner of the dog (TGO) is absent from the house and his son, a minor, decides to take the dog for a walk against all orders and recommendations given by his father which, without a mouthpiece, attacks the third person. . The dog’s aggression was not – according to TGO, who was absent at the time – unpredictable or avoidable. The initiative taken by his son represents a completely adequate and autonomous element for determining the event, thus, excluding the possible responsibilities of the father as the owner of the dog, in all its aspects.
IV section of dissent. According to which the court cassation A dog owner is responsible for a third party injury caused by the same animal, even if he leaves his custody to a person if he cannot take effective care of it or retain its natural stimulus..3
Cass. Pen n.14189 / 2021: An stray dog under investigation was “cared for” for some time by an accident caused by a non-citizen owner that caused significant damage to a motorcyclist. The sentence falls as l” Guarantee position relating to the custody of an animal arises, regardless of the concept of ownership and therefore irrelevant dog registration data in the dog registry or the imposition of an identification microchip whenever the custody of an animal as an industry and even a general detention relationship. Stays. Criminal Code 672 combines the duty of not releasing an animal or keeping it in its custody with due care, only materially and in fact, since a property relationship is not required in the civil sense, it is deemed to be a detention. .. Cass in the same sense. Pen n a similar case 20102/2018.3
Cass. Section IV Section 2019 31874: A five-year-old boy, shaking his grandmother’s hand, entered the area of a dog without identifying any animal. Grandma, meanwhile, is about to close the porchina of the area, when a dog attacks the child. The owner of the dog – who was inside the same dog area at the time of the attack, sitting on a bench, did not understand what was happening to intervene simply because he was reminded of his grandmother’s screams – was first and second condemned for the degree of injury (Article 590 of the Criminal Code). And for failing to take proper care of one’s own dog (Article 672 of the Criminal Code). He then appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the sentence.
Certainly the jurisprudence of the court of law (cassation) specified on several occasions that IIn the case of a criminal injury, the dog keeper guarantees position control and imposes custody obligations in order to prevent possible third party aggression and to take all precautions against a dog, due to its breed, size and nature. Obviously more aggressive, the custody obligation will increase further. The loss of the individual, in this case of the child, is an administrative offense although the guilt had to be identified by the parameters specified in the industry. 672 of the Criminal Code (maladministration of animals).
The owner of the dog, in fact, had to predict the possible and unlikely causal development of his careless custody because it should be considered potentially dangerous because of its ownership and its natural characteristics; For the behavior of the grandmother who inadvertently introduced a child to the dog area without leadership, no unpredictability and exceptions were mentioned.3
Cass.pen. n 30548/2016: Another aggression against a child. At the time of the accident, the dog was assigned to the father of the accused who took care of it. Peace justice excludes the dog owner’s responsibility because “in truth, the animal was guarded by its father”. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it acknowledges that the judge of the first instance “Adequately and logically Highlights that related to that limited time of the season, The animal t It was actually the watchman From A person other than the accused Who have lost the power of supervision and have direct control over itSo that it can be said that fParents of the accused bone Per Animal handle And advertising Assume all obligationsIn other words, the peace judge for the Supreme Court rightly waived the accused’s criminal liability, since at the time of the accident, he could not be held responsible for the guard and the dog that was assigned to him. Father.
Cass. Pen 5 October 2011 n. 36069: lStarting with each other in an episode where two dogs are seen as heroes, one big and one small, one is carried in a shirt. The larger animal bites the smaller one, forcing the owner of the latter to try to share them and taking a slaughter on the hand with the removal of a phalanx.
For cassation Whoever has a dog in custody, even temporarily, needs to be kept in custody, an obligation of custody that arises whenever there is a relationship, even in the case of general detention, between the animal and a given person, as art. 672 cod. The pen combines the responsibility of not releasing the animal or holding it with due care, only materially and practically understood as detention, since property relations are not necessary in the civic sense. Not only that, the accused, for the very reason that the simple “keeper” of the dog, should have paid more attention to the always possible and unpredictable behavior that could involve the pet and in this sense the mouthpiece would be crucial for the purpose. To avoid incidents. The Supreme Court, therefore, concludes that the responsibility for the injury caused by the dog he led also rests with the common “guardian”, since the property relationship in the civil sense is not required by law.
To identify a principle arising from the analysis of the above rules, a prerequisite for a certain (criminal) liability should not be identified with the ownership of the attacking dog, but in any case the owner or keeper of the dog was likely to influence causation, not finding the hotel with intentional liability. Article 40, paragraph 1) of the Criminal Code. The position of the guarantee that the law is peacefully “glued” to the owner-keeper of the animal is reflected in the art. 672 of the Criminal Code which, despite being criminalized, constitutes a reference period for the assessment of the crime in case of failure to keep the animal (Article 40, paragraph 2) of the Criminal Code.
The following two tabs change the content below.