A dog kills a neighbor’s cat. Who’s to blame?

The Zurich Supreme Court has reversed a judgment of the lower court. This acquitted the accused.

The Zurich Supreme Court has dealt with the interpretation of the dog law.

Goran Basic

It was around 2 a.m. on June 6, 2019, when the roommate and former partner of a greyhound owner in the Andelfingen district entered his own garden with three dogs. The four-legged friends should clean up there. A short time later a cat was dead.

The 42-year-old man said one of the dogs escaped when he briefly let go of its collar. The animal chased a cat that was in the fenced yard. The dog grabbed the cat, shook it and bit it dead.

The accused was punished with a fine by the governor’s office of the Andelfingen district for negligent violation of the dog law – specifically: insufficient supervision of a dog. However, he challenged this in court, and the district court of Andelfingen actually acquitted him.

However, the governor’s office appealed and demanded a fine of 500 francs. The case ended up in the Supreme Court. This settled the case in a written procedure. The decision of the Supreme Court was not appealed and is final.

Fine of 800 francs

The higher court reversed the lower court’s verdict: it even sentenced the 42-year-old to a higher fine than requested, namely 800 francs. The accused must pay an additional CHF 2,230 in procedural and court costs as well as his defense counsel.

The actual facts remained completely undisputed during the proceedings. However, the defense had argued that the incident occurred in the private garden, which was fenced off. The accused could not be accused of violating his duty of supervision.

According to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the provisions of the Dogs Act apply in all situations, regardless of whether a dog is in a kennel or garden area, whether it is being exercised or accompanying someone in an activity.

The garden was surrounded by a 1.5 meter high chain link fence, but it didn’t reach the ground. This allowed cats to enter unhindered. During the investigation, the accused argued that the gap also had advantages because cats that had climbed over the fence also had an escape route. For the court it was clear that the garden was freely accessible to cats.

Killed two cats before

Another greyhound owned by the owner had previously killed two cats and bitten a strange dog and owner. The greyhound owner and his roommate would have known that his animals posed a special danger to cats and therefore special precautions would have been necessary, the higher court justified in its guilty verdict.

The dog that killed a cat on June 6 was bred in Ireland where the animals are trained to bait greyhound races and are therefore extremely keen on cats. An attack on a cat in the garden was therefore quite foreseeable. In view of the considerable danger, one cannot speak of “a regrettable accident”, as the lower court had put it.

In principle, it is commendable if the accused and his ex-partner take in such dogs, which are known to be deported or killed if their performance on the racetrack is no longer sufficient, from a sanctuary. But that also comes with greater responsibility.

A dog owner may let his dog run free in his own fenced garden. Given the strong hunting instincts of the trained greyhound, the daily intrusion of cats into the garden through the gap under the fence, and previous incidents, another crack was foreseeable. It would have been reasonable for the accused to lead the fence to the ground. This is a relatively simple, inexpensive measure to greatly reduce the risk of further fatal incidents.

The accused’s objection that the cat owners should also be held accountable is also unfounded. With the Dogs Act, the legislator had expressly imposed special duties of care on dog owners and not on cat owners. There is a reason for this, because the danger usually comes from dogs.

When sentencing, the court took into account that the accused had confessed. However, it should be noted that he had shown no insight and attributed the blame to the cat owner and the cat.

Judgment SU210014 of October 19, 2021, final.

source site-111