B.C. woman accused of negligence after neighbour's dog bites her | Daily Hive

O_Lypa/Shutterstock

A BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute between neighbours may shed some light on whose at fault if you’re the victim of a dog bite on or near someone else’s property.

The applicant in the case, KK, said that her neighbour’s dog bit her as she walked by their patio. KK claimed $5,000 in compensation for medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering.

SF, the respondent, said that KK was “improperly” on her property and that she wasn’t responsible for KK’s negligence.

Here’s how the dog bite went down.

You might also like:

On March 24, 2024, KK was walking in front of the building where the two tribunal participants lived. KK was walking near the respondent’s outdoor patio. As she passed by the front of the patio, SF’s dog bit KK on the leg.

KK had to go to the hospital, and she received four stitches. She told the tribunal she missed a week of work due to the injury.

“The respondent denies owing the applicant any money, because they say the applicant was walking through the respondent’s own yard,” the tribunal decision reads.

The tribunal decision revealed that there are three ways for a pet owner to be held legally responsible for their pet’s actions: occupier’s liability, the legal concept of “scienter,” and negligence.

“Both occupier’s liability and negligence impose a duty of care on a pet owner to ensure that their pets do not attack any people or animals.”

SF claimed that KK was walking on their private yard space, and the tribunal accepted that KK was walking along the inside portion of the fence in front of the patio.

KK said that she was walking in front of the building and didn’t see the dog outside. She claimed it wasn’t leashed, and it suddenly attacked her. SF contended that the dog was on a short leash, tied inside the house, and only went to the yard space to relieve itself.

The respondent told the tribunal that the applicant must have startled [the dog], causing it to bite KK to protect the respondent from an intruder.

The tribunal decision revealed that SF uses a wheelchair, and that due to the unfinished nature of the patio and yard, they can’t be outside with the dog when it needs to relieve itself. However, due to poor lighting and an unfinished fence, the tribunal said that the dog’s leash was likely too long.

It added that, with the dog being able to roam past the patio into the unfinished, uncontained yard, it was foreseeable that the dog would pose a danger to other residents using the yard. This was enough for the tribunal to say SF was negligent.

Ultimately, the tribunal determined that each party in the case was 50 per cent responsible for the incident, so any damages awarded would be halved.

KK provided two hospital bills totalling $361 each. The tribunal stated that SF was required to pay half of both bills. The tribunal dismissed the claim for lost wages but did award half of $250 for pain and suffering.

The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal ordered SF to pay $573.50 as a result of the dog bite incident, which includes the total damages plus tribunal fees, within 21 days of the decision.

Want to stay on top of all things Vancouver? Follow us on X