SCA rules in favour of dog-attack victim

Judgment says it is reasonable for people to seek compensation from owners in such cases

PEOPLE are entitled to walk the streets without having to fear being attacked by dogs and, where such attacks occur, they should in most circumstances be able to look to the owner of the dog for compensation.

So found the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), as it ruled in favour of a gardener who was mauled by pit bulls in Port Elizabeth, which left him with injuries so severe that those who came to his aid thought he was dead.

Gerlard Cloete was an itinerant gardener and refuse collector who, in February 2017, was on his way to the shops.

According to court papers, after completing a job and without any warning, Cloete was attacked by three dogs owned by Christiaan van Meyeren. The dogs were cross-breeds, with a significant component of pit bull terrier. He survived, but his left arm was amputated as a result of his injuries.

The parties agreed to separate the issue of liability from negligence and the trial went to the High Court, where a claim by Cloete was granted.

Leave to appeal was refused but granted on application to the SCA.

Van Meyeren described his three dogs, Mischka, Zeus and Coco, as house dogs that had the run of his home and garden and, at night, slept on his son’s bed.

The garden could be accessed from the street through the front door of the house, a gate adjacent to the garages and, potentially, another gate adjacent and at right angles to the front door.

It was through the latter gate the dogs gained access to the street before the attack, the SCA judgment read.

Photographs taken after the attack show the one half of the gate open.

Van Meyeren and his wife testified that the gate through which the dogs escaped was customarily kept closed and locked with two padlocks.

Mrs van Meyeren said that if her husband needed to open it, he would lift it off its hinges. They also put forward an argument that an intruder might have tampered with the gate.

Judge of Appeal Malcolm Wallis’s judgment read: “None of these photographs showed any padlocks or other fastenings for the gates. Many people in South Africa choose to own animals for companionship and protection. That is their choice, but responsibilities follow in its wake.

“Whatever anthropomorphic concepts underpin pauperien liability, the reality is that animals can cause harm to people and property in various ways. When they do so and the victim of their actions is innocent of fault for the harm they have caused, the interests of justice require that as between the owner and the injured party, it is the owner who should be held liable for that harm … If anything, with the growth of urban living, the vastly increased number of pet animals, especially dogs, in our towns and cities and the opportunities for harm that they pose, that view of where the interests of justice lie has been strengthened. People are entitled to walk our streets without having to fear being attacked by dogs and, where such attacks occur, they should in most circumstances be able to look to the owner of the dog for recompense.”

Van Meyeren’s appeal was dismissed with costs.