JUDGE’S DECISION PUTS LOCAL AUTHORITY IN THE DOGHOUSE

Anyone who has ever had anything to do with the legal profession will be aware that nothing floats our boat more than the use of arcane terminology. Words from dead languages make us particularly excited. And, if we can manage to shoehorn a completely unnecessary Latin maxim into our written advices, we’re absolutely delighted with ourselves.
That’s why if you’ve been injured in an accident you may well find yourself being asked about the “locus” by your solicitor. Rather than steering the conversation toward the discussion of large grasshoppers that get a lot of bad press in the Bible, when lawyers use this term they are trying to establish where the accident occurred.
This is because when it comes to securing compensation for personal injuries the exclamation “location, location, location” can be as important to lawyers as it is to estate agents. Where the accident occurred can be equally (if not more) important than what actually happened, as a recent Circuit Court decision so clearly illustrates.
The case concerned a young boy by the name of Patrick Keenan who, at the age of six, was playing on a roundabout at Loughmahon Park in Mahon, Cork when he was bitten by a German Shepherd which had wandered over the roundabout. The attack was clearly quite serious as Patrick had to be hospitalised for several days as a result. He received more than 60 stitches to the wounds and has been left with significant permanent scarring.
Section 21 of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986 provides that the owner of a dog shall be liable in damages for damage caused in an attack on any person by that dog. I don’t suppose anyone would find this statutory imposition of liability very controversial: most people would think it only fair that if someone’s dog attacks an innocent bystander the dog owner should be forced to carry the can.
What has caused a bit of a stir, however, is the Circuit Court’s interpretation of section 1 of the 1986 Act which provides that the expression “owner” in relation to a dog includes “the occupier of any premises where the dog is kept or permitted to live or remain at any particular time unless such occupier proves to the contrary.” In other words, if a strange dog wanders on to your premises you could find yourself unwittingly having secured a new family member in the eyes of the law if you don’t shoo the trespassing canine away quickly enough.
Patrick’s legal representatives couldn’t establish the identity of the owner of the dog and so (quite wisely as it turned out) they brought a case against Cork City Council, arguing that the law allowed for the owner of land where a dog was “permitted to remain at any time” to be held liable.
After the parties had engaged in a dog fight over liability the trial judge agreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation of the legislation, resulting in the council being ordered to pay €25,000 in damages to the young plaintiff.
Counsel for the local authority delivered a biting criticism of the judgment, making it clear that he felt that the rationale behind the finding of liability was barking mad. He warned that the ruling could have serious implications for local authorities throughout the State, with each local authority facing the prospect of being held responsible for every stray dog that bit someone in a public place. He suggested that there might be some justification for fixing his client with liability if it was claimed that the particular dog had been in the park for a few days and that the council had done nothing to remove the animal, but he argued that this was not the case in this instance.
Having regard to the wide-ranging implications of the decision for local authorities throughout the land it is almost certain that the city council won’t just lie down and lick its wounds. The decision will in all likelihood be appealed to the High Court.
If so, not only should local authorities have their ears pricked for the outcome of the appeal but so too should anyone who owns property. If the plaintiff emerges from the appeal as top dog, property owners should ensure that they have adequate insurance cover for an event of this nature. If they don’t, they could well find out that life’s a bitch.