Civil liability for harm caused by potentially dangerous canine specimens

construction and utility of a special liability rule

Abstract

By analysing the new rules contained in the Responsible Possession of Pets and Company Animals Act and its administrative regulation, together with our Civil Code’s related rules, it is argued that from a civil liability perspective, the new dispositions raise important questions from two different viewpoints. First, from the viewpoint of the construction of the rules, it is held that their scope is unjustifiably restricted; some inconsistencies in the configuration of the conduct of having a potentially dangerous animal are detected; and the inexplicable differences between the two ways of qualifying a dog as potentially dangerous are discussed. Secondly, from the utility perspective, it is held that the limited effects of assimilating a potentially dangerous dog to a ferocious animal, coupled with the fact that it is easier to obtain a judicial declaration of a dog as such, will result in disputes being solved according rules in force before the enactment of the Act.