What happened
As the plaintiff walked her small dog on a leash, the defendant’s Rottweiler pushed through an unlocked screen door, crossed the road and attacked. While trying to protect her dog, the plaintiff sustained multiple bites to her left hand and fingers requiring surgery and rehabilitation, with continuing pain, restricted movement, scarring and post-traumatic symptoms; her dog also sustained extensive injuries and chronic joint problems.
The issues
Liability was admitted, leaving questions about the reliability of the plaintiff’s evidence and surveillance footage, the extent of her hand and psychiatric disabilities, and reasonable allowances for future domestic assistance and treatment. A distinct issue was the recoverable property damage for likely future veterinary treatment of her injured dog.
The court's decision
The Court accepted the plaintiff as a credible witness and found that the selected surveillance footage did not materially contradict her claimed restrictions. It awarded AUD 125,000 for non-economic loss, AUD 5,000 for past treatment, AUD 25,000 each for future domestic assistance and the plaintiff’s treatment, and AUD 45,000 property damage for future veterinary care, totalling AUD 225,000 plus ordinary costs.
Understanding the figures
The historical judgment total of AUD 225,000 comprised AUD 125,000 non-economic loss, an interim AUD 5,000 past-treatment allowance, a AUD 25,000 future domestic-assistance buffer, a AUD 25,000 future-treatment buffer for the plaintiff, and a AUD 45,000 property-damage buffer for veterinary treatment.
What this case shows
The decision shows that even where statutory dog-owner liability is accepted, damages remain an individual assessment of proved physical and psychiatric consequences and evidentiary reliability. It is also notable for treating the dog’s future veterinary costs as property damage supported by veterinary evidence and discounted for lifespan and treatment uncertainties, rather than awarding damages for affection itself.
Why another case may differ
The AUD 45,000 relating to the dog was property damage, not part of the plaintiff’s personal-injury damages, and the Court did not include loss of companionship with the dog in non-economic loss. The AUD 5,000 past-treatment allowance was interim and adjustable when the Medicare schedule became available, while the future heads were buffers reflecting uncertainty rather than tariffs for other cases.
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? →