In September 2013, the defendant was walking between two villages with her 10-month-old and playful French shepherd dog of the Briard breed. She let the dog run free in a meadow outside the village area.

At that time, the plaintiff was also walking his poodle outside the village area when the defendant’s dog ran in their direction. Her dog did not show any aggressive behavior and did not touch the dog or the owner.

However, the plaintiff or his poodle felt irritated by the defendant’s approaching dog, so the plaintiff picked up his poodle, but lost his balance due to the wriggling poodle. He fell and injured himself.

The plaintiff sought compensation from the defendant for the damage he had suffered to date (compensation for pain and suffering, costs for housekeeping, expenses) in the amount of EUR 12,500 and a declaration that the defendant was liable to him for all late and permanent consequences of the accident. The defendant had neglected its duty of care for the dog because it should not have allowed its dog to run around on a public area without a leash due to its “boisterous” nature and size.

The defendant disputed the leash requirement and argued that the fall and the plaintiff’s injuries were not foreseeable due to the mere running of her dog. Apart from this incident, the defendant’s young dog had no behavioral problems and had even successfully passed a puppy test at the age of five months.

Both the first and second courts dismissed the claim and denied a breach of duty of care by the defendant. Liability of the animal owner could only be considered if the danger to a person was recognizable. The court of first instance found that the plaintiff had fallen due to his own carelessness. The Court of Appeal stated that the defendant could assume at the time that she was allowed to let her dog run free without endangering other people or animals (even if the plaintiff was walking on this part of the path at the same time).

The Supreme Court deemed the plaintiff’s appeal inadmissible because the assessment of the custody and supervision of a dog depends on the circumstances of the individual case. It also stated that there was no general obligation to keep a dog on a leash because it was common practice to let a good-natured dog run around off-leash in open terrain. In open terrain, increased care is only required if there are particular dangers, whereby the controllability of the dog must also be taken into account in this case.

Since the defendant did not have to conclude that there was any particular danger due to the specific location (meadow in an open area) or due to the character of her dog, letting her dog run around freely was not contrary to due care.

Conclusion: Dogs are like books, you just have to be able to read them, then you can learn a lot (Oliver Jobes).