Pet owners, be warned: whether on a leash or not, you have to be able to control your dog, according to Legal Aid South Africa.
A recent court case raised some interesting points to consider in the unfortunate event of a dog attack on the liability of a dog owner for damages.
Legal Aid SA lawyer Smith Verity advises dog owners to stay informed of municipal by-laws related to pet handling which govern potential issues including noise control and public space management.
“Pet owners must protect themselves from legal action by ensuring their pets remain under control at all times, whether leashed or off-leash.
“Dogs must not be allowed to roam freely or disrupt others, as per the local municipality’s by-laws.
“It’s always beneficial to display a ‘Beware of the Dog’ sign as it protects against liability, acts as a deterrent and provides a warning”.
Dog owners can further protect themselves against civil claims for incidents which occur strictly on private property by declaring to any person on their private property that their dog may act aggressively.
Owners, she says, should emphasise that their dog should not be provoked and that no uninvited or unannounced person should enter the property.
Victims of dog attacks on private property who wish to launch a civil proceeding must establish:
– Who has full ownership of the animal or pet;
– Whether it is deemed domesticated or not;
– Whether it acted against its nature.
– Whether permission, purpose and a legal right to be present on the private property was granted to the victim.
Smith has this advice following a case was heard in the Worcester Civil Court.
The victim of the dog attack claimed R100,000 for negligence against his friend, the owner of the dog, after the incident. Legal Aid SA represented the dog’s owner in this matter.
The victim was a regular visitor to the friend’s property, assisting with fixing vehicles for extra income. On the day of the attack in September 2024, the victim arrived unannounced and uninvited to the property.
The dog was not in its usual enclosure. The dog attacked the victim and he sustained injuries. The dog owner settled all medical expenses.
As part of his claim, the victim indicated that the dog attack occurred on a public road and not on the dog owner’s property. He also claimed that there were no warning signs visible on the private property.
The location of the attack was disputed during proceedings and Legal Aid SA lawyer Smith requested an inspection in loco of the scene where the attack took place.
It was noted from the inspection that the victim lied about the location of the incident and that it occurred on private property.
The victim had full knowledge of the warnings to not enter the property and that he does so at his own risk. His unannounced visit meant he placed himself in harm’s way.
The victim further claimed that his jacket was damaged in the attack and wore this same jacket on various days in court and at the inspection in loco.
Smith noticed that the jacket did not have any visible damage consistent with a dog attack and questioned the victim about the lack of damage to the jacket.
He tried to pass off burn marks as bite marks or tears but upon further questioning, admitted that the jacket was not damaged in the attack.
Based on these findings, the court ruled that no negligence could be attributed to the dog owner.
* If you have any further questions, you can contact the toll-free Legal Aid Advice Line on 0800 110 110.