Dog bites can land you behind bars: The high stakes of dog bite liability revealed

07 Jul 2023

Dog bites and attacks, especially involving pit bulls, have been making headlines lately. Although this matter is nothing new and there is legislation regulating such cases, it is important to differentiate between the criminal and civil liabilities faced by dog owners when their animals cause harm.

When will a dog owner be held criminally liable?

The criminal liability that a dog owner (or the owner of any other animal) faces when their dog bites another person is governed by statute, specifically the Animal Matters Amendment Act, 42 of 1993. Section 1(1) states:

“Any person as a result of whose negligence an animal causes injury to another person, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.”

To be criminally liable for injury caused to another person, the animal’s owner must have acted negligently or intentionally, and the injury to the other person must have been caused by said negligence or intent. Notwithstanding the above, the dog owner in a dog bite incident may also be guilty of a common law crime, such as assault – likely with the intent to do grievous bodily harm, culpable homicide or even murder. Notably, assault cannot be committed negligently but only intentionally.

In less serious cases, such as where a person is not killed or seriously injured, the test to identify the crime of which the owner may be convicted – assault or contravention of the aforementioned section 1(1) – should be determined by whether the owner’s actions were intentional or negligent.

What does civil liability entail?

In civil matters, claims for injuries caused by domestic animals are generally regulated by the action de pauperie. Contrary to the abovementioned test for criminal liability, neither negligence nor intent is required in order to be held liable in a civil matter. However, it is noteworthy that negligence or intent of the owner will probably cause a rise in the amount awarded for damages.

All that is required for a liability claim is that the owner’s animal acted contra naturam, acting contrary to its nature. Contra naturam conduct was described in Solomon and Another NNO v De Waal[1] where the Court, in turn, quoted PMA Hunt ‘Bad Dogs'[2] where the Court stated that the animal’s conduct had to “connote ferocious conduct contrary to the gentle behaviour normally expected of domestic animals”.

In Van Meyeren v Cloete the Court stated that, for the owner to not be liable, the animal had to have caused harm while being in pain, frightened, provoked, or if the animal had acted as any animal would have acted in the circumstances before it – such as where a dog bites an intruder on its owner’s property.

Van Meyeren v Cloete famously clarified that, while an owner may escape liability through the positive negligent conduct of a third party, such as when a house sitter calls the victim of the animal attack to enter the owner’s property while knowing a dangerous dog guards said property, the owner will not escape liability by the negative negligent conduct of a third party, such as when the third party forces open the closed gate of the owner’s property, causing the owner’s dangerous dog to escape the property and injure another person.

Comparison of criminal and civil liability to other forms of injury caused

The liability of an animal’s owner is generally described as ‘strict’ in civil claims because, as mentioned above, negligence is not a requirement for fault, compared to the vast majority of other delictual claims where negligence is indeed a requirement.

However, it would not be inaccurate to describe the owner’s liability in criminal claims as also being ‘strict’ since an owner may be criminally liable even if the harm is only caused by the negligence of the owner, compared to most other offences where a person will only be held criminally liable if said person caused harm intentionally.

Given the above, it would be wise for dog owners to properly train their dogs, ensure their dogs are always secured and not keep any animal where the owner cannot properly control it. Liability in animal attacks is strict and should preferably be avoided rather than having to be tested by the Courts.

References:

[1] 1972 (1) SA 575 (A) at 582A-C
[2] (1962) 79 SALJ 326 at 328

See also:

• Compensation for dog bite claims in South Africa
• Who is liable for a dog bite injury?
• The Quantum of Damages in Bodily and Fatal Injury Cases: Quick Guide
• Strict liability: Dog owners (and insurers) beware!

(This article is provided for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. For more information on the topic, please contact the author/s or the relevant provider.)