BC man files lawsuit over claims dog damaged his $300 jacket
A BC man sued a dog owner for nearly $300 in damages because he claims the pet jumped on him and damaged his down jacket.
Eric Giles took Chase Clayton to court at the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal and claimed he was owed the cost of replacing his jacket.
According to the tribunal decision, Giles said he and Clayton were in the enclosed off-leash dog park at their shared apartment complex last spring when Clayton’s dog Kaiser “repeatedly jumped on him.”
Giles said he could fend off Kaiser the first two times the dog jumped. However, when he got up to walk away, the dog jumped on him again, and Kaiser’s claws punctured holes in his down jacket, he claims.
Giles added there were no witnesses at the time of the incident.
On the other hand, the respondent, Clayton, denies his dog jumped on Giles and damaged his jacket.
Clayton said he has no memory of any incident where he and Giles were in the dog park without other dog owners. He added that his only interactions with Giles in the dog park were in group settings with other tenants.
“He said, he said”
Part of the documentary evidence the applicant provided was pictures of the damaged jacket, an invoice and the corresponding credit card statement indicating when the coat was originally purchased. Giles also provided an invoice from a few weeks after the alleged incident, which he said was for his replacement jacket.
In his written argument, Giles referred to the notes he took the day of the alleged incident. He said he confronted Clayton multiple times about the damage to his jacket and asked him to pay for it. Giles did not supply a copy of the alleged notes to the tribunal.
In response, Clayton argued the accuracy of these notes and alleged Giles’ notes were not written on the dates he claimed they were. He added the first confrontation Giles referred to did not happen.
With the addition of a video Clayton supplied, the tribunal member said, “I find the … messages and video put significant doubt on the reliability of Mr. Giles’ alleged contemporaneous notes included in his written argument. So, I give them little weight.”
Giles also claimed Kaiser was known to be aggressive and often jumped on people. Clayton denied this and provided a document as evidence, which was signed by 25 current and previous residents at the parties’ apartment complex, saying that “Kaiser is a happy, friendly, and sociable dog that has never shown aggression or attacked someone in the dog park.”
While the document supports Clayton’s argument that Kaiser is not typically an aggressive dog, the tribunal member said, “It provides little assistance in determining whether Kaiser jumped on Mr. Giles … since none of the individuals that signed the document were in the dog park during the alleged incident.”
“Ultimately, I am left with a ‘he said, he said’ situation,” the tribunal member said.
“Given the absence of any supporting evidence proving that the incident took place … I find Mr. Giles has failed to prove that Mr. Clayton is responsible for reimbursing him the claimed $293.16.”
The tribunal dismissed the case, awarding no damages to either party.