Article 1247
Where a fierce dog or other dangerous animal that is prohibited from raising causes harm to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability.
1. The main purpose of this article
This article is about the liability for damage caused by dangerous animals that are prohibited from being raised.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
This article inherits Article 80 of the original Tort Liability Law, which reads: "If a dangerous animal such as a fierce dog that is prohibited from being raised causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability." This provision has been retained in the codification of the Civil Code.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article stipulates the liability for harm caused by dangerous animals that are prohibited from being raised.
If a dangerous animal such as a fierce dog that is prohibited from raising causes damage to others, the strictest liability of the liability for harm caused by the raised animal shall apply, and the principle of no-fault liability shall apply, and there is no reason for exemption, so it is called an absolute liability clause.
Prohibited animals, that is, dangerous animals such as fierce dogs that are prohibited from being raised, include not only fierce dogs, but also other fierce dangerous animals similar to fierce dogs, and the specific scope is: (1) fierce dogs, such as Tibetan mastiffs, etc., (2) other dangerous animals in domestic animals and poultry, and (3) prohibited wild animals that are dangerous animals, such as wild boars, wolves, jackals, tigers, leopards, lions, etc.
Where any animal is raised that is prohibited from being raised, causing damage, the keeper or manager of the animal shall be liable for compensation to the infringed party in accordance with the requirements of the principle of no-fault liability. This article is an absolute liability clause, and even if the victim causes damage intentionally or through gross negligence, it does not exempt or reduce the liability of the keeper or manager.
4. Cases
Ai Mouying v. Yu Peng, a dispute over liability for harm caused by raising animals
Facts: In the process of walking the pit bulls in the community, Ai Mouying and her daughter Xu Mou had two sled dogs owned and raised by Yu Mou Peng, and Lu Mouzhu acted in the community on their behalf. Both dogs are on a leash. When the dogs of both sides meet, they bark at each other and have a punch. Now Ai Mouying sued the court, claiming that he was injured in the process and requested Yu Moupeng to compensate for the loss. The court of first instance held that, according to article 78 of the Tort Liability Law, Ai Mouying's measures taken at the time of the case were obviously improper and grossly negligent, and Yu Moupeng's liability for compensation should be reduced. Based on the degree of fault, each party bears 50% of the responsibility. Ai Mouying was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed. The court of second instance held that, according to Article 80 of the Tort Liability Law, Yu Moupeng violated the prohibition in raising Alaskan Malamutes in the community where the incident occurred, and although Ai Mouying was also at fault for this, Yu Moupeng should be compensated for the reasonable losses arising therefrom. The court of first instance applied the law incorrectly, and this court corrected it.
5. Analysis
This case involves liability for harm caused by dangerous animals that are prohibited from being raised. Article 1247 of the Civil Code follows the provisions of Article 80 of the Tort Liability Law, and continues to stipulate that if a dangerous animal such as a fierce dog that is prohibited from being raised causes damage to others, it shall bear the strictest no-fault liability. In other words, if the victim intentionally or grossly negligently causes damages, the tortfeasor's liability shall not be mitigated or exempted. In this case, the Alaskan Malamute raised by Yu Moupeng is a dangerous animal that is prohibited from being raised, causing damage to Ai Mouying, and Yu Moupeng should be liable for compensation in accordance with the principle of attribution of no-fault liability. When Ai Mouying handled the dispute between the Alaskan Malamute raised by Yu Moupeng and the pit bull raised by herself, the measures taken were obviously improper, and there was gross negligence in the damage consequences of the injury, which could not be used as a reason for Yu Moupeng to request mitigation or exemption from liability. The first-instance judgment that Yu Moupeng mitigated his liability was inappropriate, and the second-instance judgment corrected the error and was correct. This is mainly to standardize the behavior of raising animals, urge animal keepers to strictly abide by the regulations, fulfill reasonable management obligations, and create a safe living environment.