What happened
In December 2020, the plaintiff returned to the shared driveway carrying her small dog. Her neighbour's dog first put its paws on her, moved away when told, then returned with a running jump that knocked her down. She fractured her wrist and required surgery, but there was no evidence of biting or growling.
The issues
The issues were whether the conduct amounted to wounding or attacking under s 25 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 and, separately, whether the owner negligently failed to address a foreseeable risk. The Court also considered the public-place leash and property-escape provisions in the setting of common strata property.
The court's decision
Considering the surrounding circumstances, the Court found no aggressive or other deliberate intent within s 25. It also rejected negligence, including because there was no evidence of a propensity to jump on people or relevant earlier incidents. Judgment and costs were ordered for the defendant.
What this case shows
Physical contact causing injury was distinguished from proof of an attack within the statute. Negligence was also assessed prospectively, by reference to the dog's known behaviour and the nature of the location rather than the injury alone.
Why another case may differ
The Court held that this shared driveway was not a public place for the relevant leash provision and that the dog had not escaped its property. Different locations or evidence of earlier aggressive behaviour could materially change the analysis. The damages discussed after liability failed were hypothetical assessments, not compensation ordered.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →