Dog bites – owner defense: Decker, Pex, Levi, Rosenberg & Co.

When a dog bites or attacks someone, the owner is usually in trouble. The law places full responsibility on the owner in such incidents, similarly to responsibility in a car accident. Despite this strict rule, the law allows for several exceptions, and in some cases, it is possible to reduce the weight of the responsibility placed on the owner after a dog bite. It is important to know these cases well, and we recommend that dog owners who face such charges seek help from a lawyer who specializes in the issue. This article features explanations by our office’s experienced lawyer, Michael Decker.

Attorneys from our offices in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are experts on civil and tort law. Our office is vastly experienced in providing consultation and representation in court on many different issues, including medical malpractice, bodily injury, personal accidents and more. Our attorneys accompany their clients throughout the entire process, providing them with comprehensive legal guidance personally tailored to each client’s needs.

The responsibility of owning a dog includes any harm it may cause

Owning a dog is a big responsibility. It includes not only the obligation to care for the dog and properly train it, but also the legal responsibility for any harm the dog may cause. Of course the dogs themselves cannot be sued, therefore the law allows the suing of dog owners in the case of their dog biting, attacking or harming others in any way. Moreover, the law places full responsibility for the dog’s actions on its owner. This means that it is not possible to make a case for negligence or partial responsibility by the owner. Because of this, many dog owners wonder any legal solution exists which could assist them in cases like these. To answer this question, it is important to thoroughly understand the legal circumstances, which we explain in detail below.

What kind of dog-inflicted harm may lead to compensation lawsuits and how can it be avoided?

The Israeli law’s definition of dog-inflicted harm is very broad. The exact phrasing of the relevant law (found under the Tort Order, which covers most of the cases for tort lawsuits in Israel) is as follows: “in the case of bodily harm inflicted by a dog, the dog owner, or permanent holder of the dog (hereafter called “the owner”), must compensate the victim, regardless of whether or not it was a result of the owner’s negligence.” The District Court in Tel Aviv ruled in a 2008 ruling that this broad definition may cover not only cases of dogs biting or attacking people, but even the case of a person falling as a result of a physical encounter with a dog. It may even be enough for a dog to bark or look like it’s about to pounce or attack for the owner to be held responsible for any resulting bodily harm.

The best way to avoid tort lawsuits in cases like these is, naturally, to take measures to ensure that your dogs do not pose a threat to others. These measures include training the dogs, keeping them leashed when walking them so that they cannot wander off, using a muzzle when needed, taking measures to ensure that they cannot escape from home, and so on. Another important measure which can help dog owners in case their dog still ends up harming someone is third-party insurance to cover incidents of a dog biting or harming somebody.

Are there legal defenses to prevent dog owners from being held accountable for harm inflicted by their dogs?

The law defines 3 situations in which the owner can make a case against responsibility for their dog biting or inflicting harm: (1) prior provocation of the dog by the injured party; (2) the injured party assaulting the dog owner or their family members (partners, parents and children); (3) trespassing (entering private property) by the injured party into the dog owner’s property. If the court acknowledges that one of the above-mentioned defenses hold true, the dog owner will not be held responsible for the damage.

However, the above defenses are in no way guaranteed. For example, when the party trespassing on private property is a minor who is not legally responsible for his actions, the court may overrule the defense and still hold the dog owner responsible for the attack. In addition to the above-mentioned defenses, in some rare cases the compensation required of the dog owner may be reduced on the grounds of the injured party being partially responsible for the incident (referred to as “contributory negligence”).

A recent example of a case in which the compensation for a dog attack was reduced can be found in a recent ruling by the magistrate court in Nazareth. The ruling dealt with a case of a fight between two dogs, one belonging to the claimant and the other to the defendant. The dogs’ fighting caused the claimant to fall, which in turn caused her bodily harm. The court ruled that because the claimant was walking with her dog not leashed, she is to be held accountable for contributory negligence, reducing the amount of compensation she is to receive for the damages by 30%. This ruling shows that in some cases the court may take a more lenient stance against a dog owner, despite the rigidity of the rule holding owners fully responsible for damage caused by their dogs.

Dog-bites and defenses for the owners – contact an attorney specializing in tort law

In this article we presented information on dog-bites and possible defenses for the owners in lawsuits. It is important to consult a lawyer specializing in tort law to fully understand the options available to the dog’s owner in each specific case. If you have questions or require help on the matter, our attorneys, who are experienced in representing clients in tort lawsuits, will be happy to be of service. You can contact us at the phone numbers or e-mail address below.