Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 SEPTEMBER 2012

Who let the dog in?: a case of occuper's liability

Hall & Wilcox
Hall & Wilcox
Contributor
Hall & Wilcox

Hall & Wilcox

Hall & Wilcox is a leading independent Australian law firm. We are a national firm with eight...

View firm profile
Explore more from Hall & Wilcox

The Court agreed that the presence of the dog in the house did not pose a foreseeable risk of injury to visitors.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The plaintiff got an unexpected surprise after entering her brother's house to find herself in the same room as 'Cougar', her brother's bull mastiff-kelpie hunting dog. Cougar was usually kept outside and often in a cage. Although Cougar did not rush at the plaintiff or bark or show any aggression, the plaintiff rushed back out the door, closed the screen door behind her, lost her footing and injured herself in a fall. The plaintiff admitted under cross-examination that her panicked reaction was not rational. She had a fear of dogs.

The plaintiff sued her brother and was unsuccessful at trial. She appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. It was noted that the plaintiff's brother, as occupier, owed a duty to protect visitors to the property from a 'not insignificant' risk which could reasonably be foreseen and avoided. However, the Court of Appeal agreed with the finding of the trial judge that the presence of the dog in the house did not pose a foreseeable

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from