Rottweiler attack: Civil case settled for 140,000 baht. Criminal case pending

[sinbin]

A legal guidance to dog attacks in Thailand.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Law and Order: When dogs attack: ownership laws

 

There are growing numbers of dog owners in Thailand who treat their animals like their children, prized possessions, or members of the family. With the surge in pet ownership, there have been more disputes involving domesticated animals. We have recently been contacted about two dog biting cases.

A KIWI BITE

The first case was a man from New Zealand who was in the process of applying for a retirement visa in Thailand. He was in Pattaya looking for a condominium to rent, the owner of which had a medium sized brown dog. When inspecting the condominium, the dog became agitated and growled at the man, who had decided to leave. He turned around and began his departure. The dog came after him. The man ran. The dog chased him and bit him in the back of the leg, puncturing his skin, which began to bleed.

The man was taken to the hospital where he was given stitches and shots. According to the owner, this was the first time that her dog had ever bitten anyone. She believed the dog had become agitated because there was a stranger in the home.

What can the man from New Zealand do?

Section 433 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code states that the owner of an animal is bound to compensate an injured party for any damages caused by the animal. Thailand is a civil law country based on the German Civil and Commercial Code, so the New Zealand man can only file a claim for any actual expenses arising from the incident, such as medical bills and loss of property.

Unless the dog owner could prove that the man intentionally provoked the dog, she will be liable to compensate the victim for his medical bills and any other costs directly attributable to the attack.

Furthermore, the New Zealand man can possibly file criminal charges against her under section 300 of the Penal Code for being negligent in not exercising proper restraint of the dog. If it could be proved that she knew her pet was becoming agitated and did not restrain the animal, she could be found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to another. The potential penalty for a guilty verdict is imprisonment for up to three years and a 6,000 baht fine.

DEATH OF A TOY DOG

The second case involved a Thai national with an expensive small purebred toy dog. She lives in a wealthy gated community with large homes and many foreigners. As part of her daily exercise routine, she likes to take her own dog for a morning walk around the neighborhood.

One of her neighbors was a British man who had taken in two large street dogs as pets. The British man uses the dogs to guard his home and the dogs stay outside the home but within his gated property.

Whenever anyone walked by the gated home, the dogs would bark and make a lot of commotion. The guard dogs would regularly escape and terrorize the neighborhood whenever the British man’s gate was left open.

The Thai national would sometimes see the British man’s dogs run free in the neighborhood. His dogs never attacked the woman but would bark and attempt to bite her small dog. The woman was always able to grab her little dog to protect him until last month when the British man’s servant left the gate open and the dogs escaped. They entered the Thai woman’s property and attacked her little dog. Before the woman was able to rescue her dog, her dog was grabbed and shaken for several minutes. Her dog died at the vet hospital about 14 hours later from injuries sustained in the attack.

What can the Thai woman do?

Under section 433 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code, the British man is responsible to compensate the injured party for damage caused by his dogs. The damage in the above case is to the Thai woman’s property, which is her toy dog. The Thai woman can file a lawsuit against the British man for the dog’s medical expenses and the replacement cost of a new purebred toy dog. Even though the attack was vicious, Thailand places restrictions on monetary claims for emotional distress. So she would probably not be able to receive any compensation for emotional distress.

If the British man was negligent in allowing his dogs escape and the dogs were known to have been of a vicious nature, the British man can be sued for criminal actions. He can be found guilty under section 358 of the Thai Penal Code, for damaging, destroying, or causing destruction of the property of another as a result of negligent actions. In addition, Section 377 of the Thai Penal Code states that the owner is responsible for a vicious animal if that animal is allowed to wander freely and is likely to cause injury to persons or property. Both crimes provide for imprisonment and/or a fine.

When someone takes possession of an animal, he or she can become legally liable for torts caused by the animal. And while most pet owners treat their cats or dogs like their children, in the eyes of the law they are only property. For most pet owners, the replacement value is not enough to relieve the suffering caused by the loss of a pet.

 

 

[Si Thea01]

On ‎10‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 7:09 PM, sinbin said:

I asked the Thai Visa lawyer the question when I got taken out by a few dogs whilst out cycling. He basically said there's nothing that could/can be done, as there were no laws in place to protect people in the event of being attacked by animals.

 

I'd change lawyers if I was you.  Section 433 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code states that the owner of an animal is bound to compensate an injured party for any damages caused by the animal.  Furthermore, those injured can possibly file criminal charges against the dog owner under section 300 of the Penal Code for being negligent in not exercising proper restraint on their dog. 

[sinbin]

On 3/12/2017 at 3:51 PM, Si Thea01 said:

I'd change lawyers if I was you.

The lawyer I asked was the one Thai Visa had on a thread titled  'Ask the lawyer'. I can't find that service now on the forum. The thing about lodging a complaint with the police is that you have to prove ownership. The crafty <deleted> will always deny the animal as being theirs.

[sinbin]

On 3/8/2017 at 7:54 AM, Keesters said:

In Thailand the Royal decree of 2002 entered restrictions on dog breeds such as:

• American Pitbull Terrier.
• American Staffordshire Terrier.
• Dogo Argentino.
• English Bull Terrier.
• Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
• Rottweiler.
• Akita inu.
• Fila Brasileiro (Brazilian Mastiff)

I can't seem to find a Royal Decree of 2002 on the WWW. Can anyone provide a link please. In 2005 on this forum a member claims he imported a Rottweiler into Thailand. I'm confused.

 

 

Quote

 

Thaiboxer1

• Senior Member
•  
• 
• Member
• 0
• 146 posts
•  

 

 

ID: 1   Posted February 23, 2005

Here are the updated laws for importing a dog into LOS.

I personally brought my pet Rottweiller into Thailand on Feb. 1, 2005 with no difficulties

 

 

[oldlakey]

On 3/12/2017 at 7:02 PM, sinbin said:

The lawyer I asked was the one Thai Visa had on a thread titled  'Ask the lawyer'. I can't find that service now on the forum. The thing about lodging a complaint with the police is that you have to prove ownership. The crafty <deleted> will always deny the animal as being theirs.

Somebody Asked the Lawyer if he was actually a real Lawyer

He indignantly replied of course I am

I give advice every evening after finishing my shift as a bus driver

[Si Thea01]

On 3/12/2017 at 7:02 PM, sinbin said:

The lawyer I asked was the one Thai Visa had on a thread titled  'Ask the lawyer'. I can't find that service now on the forum. The thing about lodging a complaint with the police is that you have to prove ownership. The crafty <deleted> will always deny the animal as being theirs.

Given what you were advised I can see why you cannot find them on TVF any longer.  Sure, they can deny all they like but if one has a camera and the animal can be photographed inside their property on a number of occasions, then that is good evidence.

 

In addition, you do not have to file a complaint with the RTP, given the way some operate, you can prosecute the owner yourself, civilly and criminally but you would also need a decent lawyer, something else that is rare in Thailand.

[sinbin]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

In addition, you do not have to file a complaint with the RTP, given the way some operate, you can prosecute the owner yourself, civilly and criminally but you would also need a decent lawyer, something else that is rare in Thailand.

Been there done that before. I had a motorcyclist cut out in front of my car. I had witness stating that he was in the wrong etc. After a lengthy spiel to the motorcyclist they told us to go home. I asked what about the motoring offence? The police were going to fine him 1400 Baht but decided that cuz he was poor they dropped it. I asked about the damage to my car. I was told to claim on my insurance. Next case please.

Out in the sticks it's village law.

[Dumbastheycome]

2 hours ago, sinbin said:

Been there done that before. I had a motorcyclist cut out in front of my car. I had witness stating that he was in the wrong etc. After a lengthy spiel to the motorcyclist they told us to go home. I asked what about the motoring offence? The police were going to fine him 1400 Baht but decided that cuz he was poor they dropped it. I asked about the damage to my car. I was told to claim on my insurance. Next case please.

Out in the sticks it's village law.

Your reference to a  dispute about  a motorcyclist and  damage  to your  vehicle strikes  me as being  intangible with regard  to a  Rottweiler attack. 

The  interpretations  of  events in a minor damage  vehicle  situation  has little  to do  with an attack (presumed) by  3  dogs with a  very lethal potential at loose and uncontrolled in the general community which have an identified  owner.

[sinbin]

14 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Your reference to a  dispute about  a motorcyclist and  damage  to your  vehicle strikes  me as being  intangible with regard  to a  Rottweiler attack. 

The  interpretations  of  events in a minor damage  vehicle  situation  has little  to do  with an attack (presumed) by  3  dogs with a  very lethal potential at loose and uncontrolled in the general community which have an identified  owner.

My reply was to Si Thea01concerning me taking things further in a complaint. In the reply I was pointing out the failings of taking things further with complaining here. Dumbastheycome.

[Si Thea01]

21 hours ago, sinbin said:

Been there done that before. I had a motorcyclist cut out in front of my car. I had witness stating that he was in the wrong etc. After a lengthy spiel to the motorcyclist they told us to go home. I asked what about the motoring offence? The police were going to fine him 1400 Baht but decided that cuz he was poor they dropped it. I asked about the damage to my car. I was told to claim on my insurance. Next case please.

Out in the sticks it's village law.

I really do not understand how you are relating a lethal dog attack to a motor vehicle accident.  Am I missing something here as I am having difficulty in associating the two?

[oldlakey]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

I really do not understand how you are relating a lethal dog attack to a motor vehicle accident.  Am I missing something here as I am having difficulty in associating the two?

Yes you are missing something

That something is the point he is making is that complaining in Thailand is normally a futile exercise 

He used an example that involved a motor accident, its really not that difficult to fathom 

[Si Thea01]

18 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

Yes you are missing something

That something is the point he is making is that complaining in Thailand is normally a futile exercise 

He used an example that involved a motor accident, its really not that difficult to fathom 

And you know this from experience? To associate the two is ridiculous, one has been finalised in favour of the victim's family, with the criminal matter (owing to death) pending, so what is there to fathom and what is there to compare.

 

Now from my experience, I had a malpractice suit, criminal and civil, and under Thai law I became the prosecutor, no involvement of police but I did require a lawyer and it was settled in my favour.

 

If you were aware of the number of cases that are settled in favour of the complainants here in Thailand I don't think you would not make such a statement, as it is not a futile exercise.  So no, I am not missing anything but I think you might well be.  

[oldlakey]

11 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

And you know this from experience? To associate the two is ridiculous, one has been finalised in favour of the victim's family, with the criminal matter (owing to death) pending, so what is there to fathom and what is there to compare.

 

Now from my experience, I had a malpractice suit, criminal and civil, and under Thai law I became the prosecutor, no involvement of police but I did require a lawyer and it was settled in my favour.

 

If you were aware of the number of cases that are settled in favour of the complainants here in Thailand I don't think you would not make such a statement, as it is not a futile exercise.  So no, I am not missing anything but I think you might well be.  

I was commenting on a posters experience of complaining in Thailand, which he said was a reply to you

He made the point that complaining in Thailand had been unsuccessful in his case

His post was not difficult to understand

You appeared to miss the thrust of his post, or maybe deliberately so either way its of no consequence or interest to yours truly

Much the same as the rest of your post 132

 

[Si Thea01]

11 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

I was commenting on a posters experience of complaining in Thailand, which he said was a reply to you

He made the point that complaining in Thailand had been unsuccessful in his case

His post was not difficult to understand

You appeared to miss the thrust of his post, or maybe deliberately so either way its of no consequence or interest to yours truly

Much the same as the rest of your post 132

 

For a response that has no consequence  or interest, you certainly have a lot to say, in particular when the initial reply was  not addressed to you. Does he need you to offer an explanation or have you just taken it upon yourself to offer your expertise on another's post?  

[oldlakey]

5 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

For a response that has no consequence  or interest, you certainly have a lot to say, in particular when the initial reply was  not addressed to you. Does he need you to offer an explanation or have you just taken it upon yourself to offer your expertise on another's post?  

Need, well I suggest you address that enquiry to him in person

Another thing you might have missed is that this is a open forum, where the members offer up their humble opinions on all manner of things, which is met with a full spectrum of replies 5555555555

And just in case this has escaped your notice that includes all the posts

Explanation is the very word I would have chosen myself, expertise is going a bit too far in my case

Yes I do seem to have the bit between my teeth today dont I, mother often used that old English proverb children should be seen and not heard

So to close, I shall now Ramble On, until I find that Stairway to Heaven, and on ascending said stairway, I will hopefully encounter Whole Lotta Love

[Dumbastheycome]

3 hours ago, oldlakey said:

Need, well I suggest you address that enquiry to him in person

Another thing you might have missed is that this is a open forum, where the members offer up their humble opinions on all manner of things, which is met with a full spectrum of replies 5555555555

And just in case this has escaped your notice that includes all the posts

Explanation is the very word I would have chosen myself, expertise is going a bit too far in my case

Yes I do seem to have the bit between my teeth today dont I, mother often used that old English proverb children should be seen and not heard

So to close, I shall now Ramble On, until I find that Stairway to Heaven, and on ascending said stairway, I will hopefully encounter Whole Lotta Love

Have  you  ever practiced  walking  backwards?  

[oldlakey]

14 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Have  you  ever practiced  walking  backwards?  

AH, my friend,

Dumbastheycome,

We haven't spoken for a while, so I will keep this short and sweet

 

                       BYE - BYE

[Dumbastheycome]

8 hours ago, oldlakey said:

AH, my friend,

Dumbastheycome,

We haven't spoken for a while, so I will keep this short and sweet

 

                       BYE - BYE

Au revoir it  is then.

[manxninja]

 

Ah i see humans kill millions of animals every year equals normality, animals kill one human equals outrage.

 

Funny old world.

[sinbin]

The outrage is because it was preventable and should never have happened, plus a few other facts, and the owners blase attitude to the whole event.

Does anyone know yet the outcome of the autopsy on the victim? Did the guy die as a result of the dogs attacking him or was he dead when the dogs chewed him up?