- This topic has 6 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I have a friend who lives in a strata apartment building in Sydney. The By-laws there, say you can own a dog or cat.
In the common-property backyard, her cat was there and the neighbours dog saw it got excited and mauled it. The neighbour also is a resident in the same apartment building, not a neighbour over the back fence.
It died 3-days later at a Vet hospital, from injuries caused by the dog. It cost her $2000 in vet bills trying to save the cat, as she doesn’t have pet insurance. Apart from proposing a special by-law banning dogs in the building which she is contemplating, can she sue the OC for damages and re-coup the vet costs, or does she have to sue the owner of the dog for vet costs? The attack happened on common-property.
-
Replies
-
Matt – many Special By-Laws (SBL) that permit the keeping of pets stipulate that they’re not to be on the Common Property at all unless they’re restrained and/or being held by their Owners.
So perhaps ask your friend to in the first instance check compliance by both her and the other party with the provisions of that SBL and to then, in the light of that, consider whether any legal action could be taken or be justified in the circumstances, and if so by what process that might best be commenced – such as with the assistance of Community Justice Centre (in NSW) if she considers that the other party has indeed breached that SBL.
Matt
Whilst I’m sorry to hear about the demise of your friend’s cat, I can’t see why you think that suing the Owners Corporation would be a reasonable option.
It seems that both animals were on common property without any form of control or supervision. If I had a fight with my neighbour on common property, and lost out, having to fork out for medical expenses as a result, would you think it fair and reasonable that I sue the owners corporation to recover my costs (+presumably the lawyers fees?)
What was the Owners Corporation able to do to prevent this animal attack. Should they have had a guard on duty 24/7 watching over every square inch of common property so that they could intervene?
If your friend wants to seek to amend the by-laws to prevent dogs being allowed that is their prerogative. But why penalise those dog owners who are responsible and keep their dogs on a leash and under control when on common property?
If this incident had a occurred on the footpath outside the building, would you consider holding the council responsible?
This has very little to so with strata and everything to do with a dog owner’s failure to control his animal. Lots of strata schemes don’t allow children to play on common property – would we even consider that if a toddler was mauled by a dog while chasing a ball across a communal space?
We seem to be blithely accepting the fact that the dog killed the cat on the basis of “dogs will be dogs”. The Companion Animals Act and local council by-laws would beg to differ.
For instance, in Sydney (and I suspect elsewhere) cats are legally free to roam wherever they want but dogs most certainly aren’t. Even if we accept the probability that neither the cat not the dog should have been on common property, that does not excuse the dog from mauling and killing the cat and the owner of the dog has to accept the responsibility for that.
If you read the relevant section of the Act below, you will see that the only excuse pertinent here is if the cat strayed on to the dog’s home territory. That was not the case here.
The fines for having a dog that attacks and/or kills a person or animal are substantial and in extreme cases (not this one) could result in jail terms. I say this to indicate that the law doesn’t treat the killing of cats as lightly as some correspondents here.
In my humble opinion, the owner of the dog should pay all the vet bills and count himself lucky that he is not also being fined and having the dog declared a dangerous animal.
Have a look at the relevant section of the Act (below). FYI, for the purposes of fines, a “penalty unit” is $110. So the maximum fine when an an ordinary dog (not designated dangerous) chases or attacks a person or another animal is $11,000. If the dog has already been declared dangerous, the maximum fine is $44,000.
The NSW Companion Animals Act(1) If a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal:
(a) the owner of the dog, or
(b) if the owner is not present at the time of the offence and another person who is of or above the age of 16 years is in charge of the dog at that time—that other person,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
(a) 100 penalty units except in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog, or
(b) 400 penalty units in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog.
(1AA) If a dog (other than a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog) rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal:
(a) the owner of the dog is guilty of an offence if the incident occurs as a result of a reckless act or omission by the owner, or
(b) if the owner is not present at the time of the incident and another person who is of or above the age of 16 years is in charge of the dog at that time—that other person is guilty of an offence if the incident occurs as a result of a reckless act or omission by that other person.
Maximum penalty: 200 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
(1AB) If a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal:
(a) the owner of the dog is guilty of an offence if the incident occurs as a result of a reckless act or omission by the owner, or
(b) if the owner is not present at the time of the incident and another person who is of or above the age of 16 years is in charge of the dog at that time—that other person is guilty of an offence if the incident occurs as a result of a reckless act or omission by that other person.
Maximum penalty: 500 penalty units or imprisonment for 4 years, or both.
(1A) The owner of a dangerous dog, a menacing dog or a restricted dog is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the dog attacks or bites any person (whether or not any injury is caused to the person), and
(b) the incident occurs as a result of the owner’s failure to comply with any one or more of the requirements of section 51 or 56 (as the case requires) in relation to the dog.
Maximum penalty: 700 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both.
Note. Conviction for an offence under this subsection results in permanent disqualification from owning a dog or from being in charge of a dog in a public place. See section 23.
(2) It is not an offence under this section if the incident occurred:
(a) as a result of the dog being teased, mistreated, attacked or otherwise provoked, or
(b) as a result of the person or animal trespassing on the property on which the dog was being kept, or
(c) as a result of the dog acting in reasonable defence of a person or property, or
(d) in the course of lawful hunting, or
(e) in the course of the working of stock by the dog or the training of the dog in the working of stock.
(3) This section does not apply to a police dog or a corrective services dog.
(4) If, on the trial of a person charged with an offence against subsection (1AA) or (1AB) the trier of fact is not satisfied that the person committed the offence but is satisfied that the person committed an offence against subsection (1), the trier of fact may find the person not guilty of the offence charged but guilty of an offence against subsection (1), and the person is liable to punishment accordingly.
(5) For the purposes of this section, recklessness may also be established by proof of intention.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Matt, I am so sorry and feel for your friend losing her kitty Kat in such a horrible fashion. JT is on the money and in my opinion neither of those animals should have been on CP unless on a leash or carried. If they were….well.. Bylaws people!!!! But… that does not forgive the fact that this animal/dog is most probably a dangerous animal and should be reported to your local council.
Best of luck to your friend in finding some resolution.
Cheers CBF
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.