Who is responsible when a dog bites a person? Is it enough to say "it ran away by itself"? Or is it the actual possession of the animal that is more important in court than ownership? According to Domantas Velykis, a lawyer at AVOCAD, careless behaviour or a lack of security can lead to criminal liability.
In Lithuania, the rules for keeping animals are strictly regulated by the Law on Animal Welfare and Protection of the Republic of Lithuania, which sets forth how state and municipal institutions, as well as animal owners themselves, must ensure the welfare of pets and the safety of people. The law establishes the general rights and obligations of animal owners—for example, that animals must not pose a threat to the life, health, or property of people or other animals. Based on this law and the functions assigned to the State Food and Veterinary Service, a set of rules for keeping animals in residential areas was developed. Based on these guidelines, mayors of municipalities approve specific rules for keeping animals that apply within their municipal territory. “A person who violates these requirements and, as a result, causes an animal to injure another person may face criminal liability for causing bodily harm. In such cases, the issue usually involves negligence—criminal carelessness—where the necessary safety measures were not ensured,” the lawyer states.
As with other crimes of bodily injury, according to AVOCAD lawyer Domantas Velykis, the offence is qualified according to the extent and consequences of the injuries. Most of these cases fall under the category of negligent infliction of minor bodily harm, and the following is a discussion of the elements of this crime and the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania (SCL).
The lawyer points out that the qualification of the offence does not depend on whether the person is the owner of the dog, but only on whether he is the actual keeper of the dog. What is relevant is the fact of the injury itself, which is caused by the negligent behaviour of improper keeping of the animal. Therefore, for criminal liability, it is sufficient to prove the actual ownership or possession of the dog. Anyone who negligently injures or maims a person, provided that the injury or maiming results in partial incapacity for work or a prolonged illness, but does not have serious consequences, is liable to criminal prosecution. The offence in question is committed only with negligence.
Under the Criminal Code, criminal negligence means that a person:
- did not foresee that his actions or omissions could lead to harmful consequences, such as that the person does not realise that he is violating generally accepted rules of care or special requirements for carrying out work and therefore does not foresee that his actions (acts or omissions) could lead to dangerous consequences, in this case, injury to a person;
- could and should have foreseen the consequences of the act, given the circumstances of the act and the personal characteristics of the person concerned - the ability to foresee the consequences is a subjective criterion of criminal negligence, which determines the ability of a person with a relevant duty to foresee the dangerous consequences of his or her actions in a particular situation. The ability to foresee the consequences is an objective criterion of criminal negligence, which establishes the existence of a duty of care when committing the act in question.
“In other words, the ability and obligation to foresee consequences define a person’s duty to be careful and to anticipate potentially dangerous outcomes,” says the lawyer.
In a landmark Supreme Court case, a dog owner failed to ensure that two Rottweiler mixes she kept would not pose a threat to others, in breach of legal requirements. Knowing that a child was nearby, she opened the aviary and let the dogs out in the yard. One of the dogs attacked the minor, causing minor injuries. Although the keeper argued that she could not have foreseen this behaviour, the Court notes that she should and could have foreseen it, knowing that the child, a stranger to the dogs, would be attacked and injured by the dogs, which were defending their territory from unauthorised persons, when she opened the car door to enter the yard. Therefore, the keeper should have taken additional precautions (e.g. locking the car door or creating a barrier to access to the yard).
“In another case, the defendant was acquitted because the dog had been locked in a room and only escaped when a guest opened the door—in this instance, the owner had taken reasonable safety precautions,” Domantas Velykis notes, summarizing judicial practice. In yet another case, a dog owner was convicted because the dog, having broken free from a chain that was too weak, ran out onto a public road and bit a woman and her pet. The Supreme Court of Lithuania emphasized that simply tying up a dog is not enough if the strength of the chain or collar is not ensured.
Thus, according to AVOCAD's lawyer, an animal keeper has a duty not only to take care of the welfare of his or her pet, but also to ensure that the pet does not cause danger or harm to third parties. Negligent behaviour or failure to ensure safety can lead to criminal liability under the Criminal Code.