1. Event details: On the evening of November XX, 2020, Ms. Zuo went out with her pet Shih Tzu that she had raised for two years. The puppy was usually docile and obedient, so Ms. Zuo did not tie the puppy with a leash and asked the puppy to follow h...
1. Event details:
On the evening of November XX, 2020, Ms. Zuo went out with her pet Shih Tzu that she had raised for two years. The puppy was usually docile and obedient, so Ms. Zuo did not tie the puppy with a leash and asked the puppy to follow her across the road.
However, after all, they had been suffocating at home all day, and the puppy was very excited when he came out. (Surveillance video later showed) it quickly crossed the non-motorized lane and entered the motorized lane, and came into contact with the right rear wheel of a normally moving vehicle. The puppy immediately fell to the ground, but the driver walked straight away.
Ms. Zuo quickly ran over and picked up the puppy in distress, but the puppy was already dead.
2. Progress of the incident:
Ms. Zuo was very sad. She quickly checked the surveillance system and found the vehicle responsible for the accident. Since the negotiation for compensation failed to reach an agreement, Ms. Zuo sued the driver, Mr. Zhang, to court.
Ms. Zuo believes that Mr. Zhang failed to fulfill his duty of care and was negligent. First of all, as the driver, Mr. Zhang should be able to see the location of the puppy and predict the direction of the dog's travel to avoid accidents. Secondly, after the accident, Mr. Zhang should have been able to feel his car running over something and stop to check the situation, but Mr. Zhang drove away instead. Therefore, Mr. Zhang should bear the liability for compensation.
Ms. Zuo claimed for economic loss of 4,500 yuan based on the market value of the adult Shih Tzu dog. In addition, Ms. Zuo was deeply saddened by the puppy's death because she had been raising the dog for more than two years. She also claimed 10,000 yuan from the driver for mental damages.
The defendant driver, Mr. Zhang, argued that he was driving normally at the time of the incident and that it was getting late, so he did not realize that he had run over the puppy. And according to surveillance, there was no crosswalk at the location of the incident.
Dear friends, in this case, is Ms. Zuo’s request reasonable? Do you think Driver Zhang should compensate Ms. Zuo?
3. The court ruled that all of Ms. Zuo’s claims were dismissed.
After the first-instance verdict, Ms. Zuo was dissatisfied and appealed. The Intermediate People’s Court recently made a final judgment upholding the original verdict.
The reasons are as follows:
Ms. Zuo walked her dog outdoors without a leash and allowed her pet dog to enter a motorway with a large traffic volume. Judging from the surveillance video, the pet dog entered the motor vehicle lane relatively quickly. When the pet dog sprang out from the green belt, the front of the motor vehicle driven by Mr. Zhang had already surpassed the pet dog's path of action. This situation is beyond the scope of what motor vehicle drivers can observe or predict in advance. Therefore, the driver cannot be found to be at fault for the contact between the pet dog and the right rear wheel of the vehicle.
In addition, considering the number of vehicles and people on the motorway and non-motorized lanes where the incident occurred in the evening, as well as the small size of the pet dog involved, it is difficult to determine that the driver, Mr. Zhang, as claimed by Ms. Zuo, escaped despite running over the puppy. In addition, the driver was not at fault for the incident, so he should not be severely held responsible for the obligation to rescue.
4、 Basis for disposal:
Article 1251 of the Civil Code stipulates:
"Animals shall be kept in compliance with laws and regulations, respect social ethics, and shall not interfere with the lives of others."
Article 1213 of the "Civil Code" stipulates:
"If a motor vehicle causes a traffic accident and causes damage that is attributable to the liability of the motor vehicle party, the insurance company that underwrites the compulsory motor vehicle insurance shall first Compensation shall be made within the limit of compulsory insurance liability; the insufficient part shall be compensated by the insurer who underwrites the motor vehicle commercial insurance in accordance with the insurance contract; if it is still insufficient or the motor vehicle commercial insurance is not insured, the infringer shall compensate.”
5. Reflection on cover:
In this case, it was confirmed by investigation and monitoring that it was clear that the liability did not belong to the motor vehicle party, so Ms. Zuo’s request was not established. On the contrary, Ms. Zuo’s pet dog was at fault for not having a leash on it. Before 2020, pet dogs kept by residents were not explicitly required to wear leashes when going out. Starting from this year, there are already clear requirements on this matter. When Yiliu confirmed this with a dog-raising colleague, she was very clear about this regulation. He also said that if this incident happened before 2020, it would still be possible to ask the driver for compensation, but this year because there is a clear requirement that dogs must be kept on a leash when going out, they will not be able to ask for compensation. When discussing this point of view, it is obvious that she did not emphasize the fact that the pet dog was run over in front of the car or behind the car. But things will be different starting this year. Even if the driver is killed by a car, he is not responsible. All friends who have pet dogs must pay attention.
