In court, the service technician argued that the dog’s owner had told him the dog was friendly and did not bite, and that the bite to his leg occurred without any prior provocation on his part. The family, for their part, argued that the service technician had approached the dog’s mouth unnecessarily in order to claim compensation from them, and that this was not the first time he had appeared in court suing over a dog bite.
Following the bite, which kept the service technician confined to his home for several days, and in view of the suffering caused to him, the technician sued for compensation in the amount of NIS 50,000.
So what does the law say?
The Torts Ordinance [New Version] establishes a specific legal arrangement concerning a person who has suffered bodily injury caused by a dog. Section 41A of the Torts Ordinance provides:
“In an action for bodily injury caused by a dog, the owner of the dog or the person who keeps the dog on a permanent basis (hereinafter — the owner) shall be liable to compensate the injured party, and it makes no difference whether or not there was negligence on the part of the owner.”
And Section 41B provides that —
“In an action under this chapter the owner shall have no defense, unless the injury was caused as a result of one of the following —
(1) provocation of the dog by the injured party;
(2) an assault by the injured party on the owner, the owner’s spouse, parent or child;
(3) trespass by the injured party on the owner’s real property.”
These provisions of the Torts Ordinance impose heightened liability on the dog’s owner, without any need to prove negligence on their part, alongside the specification of certain defenses that may narrow the scope of the dog owners’ liability toward the person bitten by the dog.
The ruling
The court held that the mere act of the service technician walking near the homeowner who was holding the dog cannot be regarded as provocation giving rise to a defense against the claim, and that the plaintiff’s conduct cannot be regarded as a wrongful act that limits the dog owners’ liability toward the service technician.
The compensation awarded
Since the service technician suffered only minor injury and the amount of compensation requested far exceeds what is customary and accepted in the case law of the courts with respect to similar injuries — which caused only non-pecuniary damage, with no permanent disability, no loss of wages and no special expenses — compensation of only NIS 7,500 was awarded.
Additional consequences beyond the monetary compensation
Under the Rabies Ordinance, an animal that has bitten a person immediately raises a concern of rabies infection, in view of the animal’s aggression, and the animal must therefore be sent and isolated in quarantine for 10 days. This causes great suffering to both the dog and the owners, who must leave their pet behind bars, not to mention the financial costs. It is therefore advisable to try to avoid any contact between the dog and strangers, so as not to find oneself in this situation.
Can an injunction be requested?
Indeed yes — in certain circumstances and on convincing grounds, one may apply to the court and request an injunction. Where there is a health concern for the animal, an injunction may be requested, setting out the reasons for which the court will be asked to refrain from sending the dog to quarantine.
