# Dog Law Seminar



## nickmcmechan (Aug 1, 2009)

I attended a seminar on dog law last night. It was very informative and enjoyed the evening.

First, would like to say thanks to Gwen and June at Tynewater Dog Training for organising the event. Gwen and June have been proactive in organising Scottish events (as there are few) and also work hard with SWTS in Scotland, organising trials as well as running Tynewater and working full time!

The speaker was Robert Fife, a Solicitor Advocate, Part Time Sherriff, partner with Anderson Strathern, lover of Dogs and the Weimeraner Club of Scotland.

What's below is the notes I jotted down. I'll try to make my own musings, opinions and conclusions distinct from Robert own words..

Robert spoke about a case where a man on business decided to go for a jog in a local park. Upon seeing the jogger the dog became excited and ran up to the jogger. The Jogger was very unhappy about this and an altercation ensued. The jogger became very threatening towards the dog owner, and although there was no physical contact the jogger was agressive towards him. The owner of the dog then reported the jogger to the police and made a statement. Unknown to the dog owner, the jogger had also made complaint that the dog was dangerously out of control. Conviction of this criminal offence could lead to a destruction order upon the dog. The key points here are (1) the dog owner had admitted liability regarding the dogs behaviour when making the complaint about the jogger (2) we live in a modern world where people can become quickly agressive (3) my conclusion - I train my dogs to sit when there is a jogger or cyclist nearby and I'm glad I do!

Animals Act (1971) - England & Wales only - where damage is caused by an animal the keeper of the animal is liable. Key point here for professional dog walkers in all the dog laws, you are the keeper when you are walking your clients dogs.

Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 - is more about the provision of STRICT liability, I.e. if the act happens you WILL be liable in law. The person liable for any injury caused by a dog is the keeper at the time. If the keeper is under 16 years of age, the owner of the dog in the household is liable. It covers "biting or otherwise savaging, attacking or harrying" and can be applied to other animals - cattle, sheep, deer, horses, livestock. I don't remember Robert stating Cats in the list.

Where an animal strays on to land and is not under control of the keeper the dog can be detained. If a dog strays on to Farmers Land the farmer may kill the dog. The act has a provision for a civil case that the farmer can act to protect self, other person or livestock. What I took from this is that if the farmer decide to shoot your dog, he can basically get away with it, even if the dog is nowhere near his livestock. Robert stated it would be very difficult to sue the Farmer over this because of the civil provision in law.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Does apply in Scotland. I had wondered it it had been replaced with the Control of Dogs Act.
DDA is more about criminal acts. The act is 'amended' and applies everywhere (private land as well).
Dangerous Breeds are covered in section 1 of the act.
Section 3 - if a dog is dangerously out of control the owner is guilty of an offence, if the dog injures a person the owner is guilty of an aggravated offence.
No injury - max 6 months imprisonment, £5k fine
Injury - max 2 years imprisonment
Dangerously put of control - regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension, I.e. just need to believe the dog will do it, doesn't actually have to do it. However key word 'reasonable'. Robert explained reasonable in this way. If you are walking along a path and your dog suddenly barks at a person and the person then runs on to the road in to a bus, you are not liable because the reaction of the person was not reasonable, I.e. they were unusually sensitive to the dog. However if the dog has a history of barking at strangers passing the path you should have controlled that risk. The 'test' is reasonable apprehension, I.e does the dog have a propensity to act that way, is there a history? One of the attendees spoke about their fear agressive collie they have rehabilitated but now has the Gold KCGS award. Robert said that she can now draw a line under the previous behaviours of the dog as there is now evidence of professional training. It's all about risk, the risk of that dog causing harm has now been reduced. My musing is that you know your dog and therefore you know the risk, so you must control whatever risk is evident and you are legally obliged to do so.

Control of Dogs Act (Scotland) 2010 - if it comes to the attention of authorised officer then the officer may serve a dog control notice. Robert wasn't aware of any being served but one of the trainers I was sitting beside knew of one person who had been served. The order involve muzzling the dog in a certain street and keeping it on leash. The dog had lunged at someone.
- may involve an electronic transponder
- can be appealed to a Sherriff
- dog warden serves the notice
- complaint has to proved it was your dog, I.e. there has to be evidence it happened 
- 'out of control' if it is not kept under control effectively and consistently and causes alarm and apprehensiveness. All 3 conditions must be met to be deemed out of control (1) not under consistent control (2) alarm and apprehensiveness (3) reasonable alarm and apprehensiveness.

Dog walkers - you are liable for the dogs actions if the owner deemed you to be a 'fit and proper person' to look after their dog.

Some examples of cases:

Welsh v Brady [2009] CSIH 60.

This was in Scotland (one of the trainers told me about a recent case in England that is similar).
Owner of a Goldie out walking their dog in a park and meets owner of a Lab. Lab and Goldie are playing together. Goldie is recalled and the Goldie does so with enthusiasm. Lab recalls to Goldie owner as well but collides with Goldie owners knee causing serious injury. Goldie owner takes Lab owner to court for £160,000 (!). It was deemed that the injury was foreseeable and likely to cause injury (the Lab was known to have poor recall with its owner). The appeal court ruled in favour of the defendant as the evidence did not satisfy Section 1 of the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 as the Lab is not likely to cause injury as it does not have attributes that would deem it likely. Evidence was given b behaviourist in this case, Robert spoke about how this was effectively a ruling on the behaviours of Labradors. The trainer I spoke to who knew of the similar English case said the person had been successfully sued for £150k!

Whippy v Jones [2009] EWCA Civ 452

Mr Jones was jogging along a footpath and Mr Jones' Great Dane, Hector, bounded up to the jogger. He fell down a slope and broke his ankle. The claim was that Mr Whippy's conduct fell below the standards expected. In court it was about whether a reasonable person would anticipate a lack of control would cause injury. Judge found that Hector would not normally jump up at people so Mr Whippy would not be able to anticipate Hector's actions. So, the point is, although it is possible it could happen it is not likely to happen.

Chatham v Paul [1998] EWCA Civ 286

Postman on a moped travelling up the dog owners the drive. The dog, a 50kg Rottie jumped on the Postie and pushed him to the ground. Court ruled that the dog is a gentle giant and acts like Tigger (yes, these were the judges words). The key point is that the dog does not have a propensity to attack so there was no case.

A list of some of the relevant acts

Protection of livestock: Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953
Causes danger or injury in a public place: Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 s49
Unnecessary Suffering: Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. S20 covers docking of tails. S24'covers ensuring welfare
Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 & 1991
Excrement: Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003
Collars & Tags: The Comtrol of Dogs Order 1992
Detention of stray dogs on private land: Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 s3
Seizure / Detention of Stray Dogs: Environment Protection Act 1990 s149

Robert spoke about 'City of Edinburgh Councils Public Parks and Greenspace Rules'. Professiona Dog Walkers need a Permit in Edinburgh from 1st March 2013. Robert suspects there will be a trend in this elsewhere (indeed I mused that Lanarkshire Council have stopped allowing any of their premises to be used for dog training).

Robert's view is that in future there will more regulation such as mandatory microchip ping, licensing, mandatory owner training.

Some of my key notes from the seminar

1. You know your dog and whether is has a propensity to act in a certain way. You must take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of any harm

2. Reasonable is a key word in law. However what you deem reasonable may be different from other people, e.g a judge!

3. Although it is probable a dog may act in a certain way, we can only deal with what is likely. (Goes back to point 1)


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

nickmcmechan said:


> ISome examples of cases:
> 
> Whippy v Jones [2009] EWCA Civ 452
> 
> Mr Jones was jogging along a footpath and Mr Jones' Great Dane, Hector, bounded up to the jogger. He fell down a slope and broke his ankle. The claim was that Mr Whippy's conduct fell below the standards expected. In court it was about whether a reasonable person would anticipate a lack of control would cause injury. Judge found that Hector would not normally jump up at people so Mr Whippy would not be able to anticipate Hector's actions. So, the point is, although it is possible it could happen it is not likely to happen.


Mr Jones had a Great Dane called Hector.

Jogger is ?

Mr Whippy is ?

What conduct of Mr Whippy fell elow standards expected?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

nickmcmechan said:


> I3. Although it is probable a dog may act in a certain way, we can only deal with what is likely. (Goes back to point 1)


Hmmmmm my understanding is that probability = likely.

This is the term we use in H & S law.

Ie it is POSSIBLE that something may happen but not PROBABLE.


----------



## nickmcmechan (Aug 1, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> Mr Jones had a Great Dane called Hector.
> 
> Jogger is ?
> 
> ...


Jogger is Mr Jones. mr Whippy is the dog owner.

Mr Jones' case is that Mr Whippy's conduct fell below the expected standards. This was about Mr Whippy's standard of control over his dog. Mr Jones did not succeed in his case.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

nickmcmechan said:


> I attended a seminar on dog law last night. It was very informative and enjoyed the evening.
> 
> First, would like to say thanks to Gwen and June at Tynewater Dog Training for organising the event. Gwen and June have been proactive in organising Scottish events (as there are few) and also work hard with SWTS in Scotland, organising trials as well as running Tynewater and working full time!
> 
> ...


thanks for sharing


----------



## nickmcmechan (Aug 1, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> Hmmmmm my understanding is that probability = likely.
> 
> This is the term we use in H & S law.
> 
> Ie it is POSSIBLE that something may happen but not PROBABLE.


Good catch, that was a typo, I should have typed possible there and not probable. You are spot on, probable = likely but possible does not


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

nickmcmechan said:


> Jogger is Mr Jones. mr Whippy is the dog owner.
> 
> Mr Jones' case is that Mr Whippy's conduct fell below the expected standards. This was about Mr Whippy's standard of control over his dog. Mr Jones did not succeed in his case.


That makes sense, you may want to go back and correct your original post tho! 

Thanks for sharing as although I have attended a full day Dog Law for Professionals with Trevor Turner he only covers England and Wales which, like several other laws, differs slightly from that of Scotland and NI.


----------



## nickmcmechan (Aug 1, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> That makes sense, you may want to go back and correct your original post tho!
> 
> Thanks for sharing as although I have attended a full day Dog Law for Professionals with Trevor Turner he only covers England and Wales which, like several other laws, differs slightly from that of Scotland and NI.


I copied and pasted to other forums I'm on as well, so have been clicking edit like mad! 

It is interesting. I thought it fascinating Roberts view and what relates to Englad as well as Scotland. He seemed clear that there would be more legislation in future.

I'm also musing over one of the lab cases and how a lab behaves. The implication is that if a certain breed is known to act in a certain way we must reduce the risk of injury? Didn't get time to talk to Robert about this, but this means that a guarding breed may guard? Therefore if it guards your property and bites an intruder are you liable. Would have loved to have spent more time with him.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

nickmcmechan said:


> I copied and pasted to other forums I'm on as well, so have been clicking edit like mad!
> 
> It is interesting. I thought it fascinating Roberts view and what relates to Englad as well as Scotland. He seemed clear that there would be more legislation in future.
> 
> I'm also musing over one of the lab cases and how a lab behaves. The implication is that if a certain breed is known to act in a certain way we must reduce the risk of injury? Didn't get time to talk to Robert about this, but this means that a guarding breed may guard? Therefore if it guards your property and bites an intruder are you liable. Would have loved to have spent more time with him.


Well under Civil Law negligence has three "proofs" only one of which has to be met for a successful claim.

It is forseeable that for example my dog will bark if you go near my car; thus I minimise the probability of that happening by:

Parking my car in an area of least footfall
Parking it in the orientation where few people will go near where he lives
Covering up the car

Just an example.


----------



## nickmcmechan (Aug 1, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> Well under Civil Law negligence has three "proofs" only one of which has to be met for a successful claim.
> 
> It is forseeable that for example my dog will bark if you go near my car; thus I minimise the probability of that happening by:
> 
> ...


A good example!


----------



## Mark Walden (Mar 31, 2013)

I went to a Dog Law for Professionals seminar hosted by Trevor Cooper from Cooper & Co. He is also the solicitor for Dogs Trust. Couldn't recommend it more.

From what I've been reading, certainly one of the biggest things you learn from Dog Legislation is how heavily flawed they are. They are changing and it can be a legal minefield out there, especially if you run a rescue home/charity. Not only that but they are different in different regions.

I bumped into Trevor Cooper at Crufts and done a quick interview about legislation that's currently changing. Definitely worth a read -

Trevor Cooper - Dog Law Specialist | Mark Walden


----------



## peterscot423 (Mar 25, 2013)

yes, i was attended the last dog seminar. There was varieties of dog breed can shown and many informatics knowledge about them i gets.


----------



## EssexWags (Nov 20, 2011)

I'm attending the seminar next week.....looking forward to it even more now, Thanks guys


----------



## FEJA JUODAS (May 19, 2010)

smokeybear said:


> Well under Civil Law negligence has three "proofs" only one of which has to be met for a successful claim.
> 
> It is forseeable that for example my dog will bark if you go near my car; thus I minimise the probability of that happening by:
> 
> ...


those actions possible seem reasonable however...time consuming and if you park your car in an isolated place at the start of your walk there could be another car and people next to it on return ! now this is an issue with my dogs sometimes if out in the country...not in town...in town they are used to many cars and many people around no barking done...but out in the countryside when isolated and no one around normally yes my dogs would bark to alert ME that they could see someone near our car...i add from a great distance...since my dogs stay with me do not rush off unless told to by the time we get to our car i have spoken to my dogs to tell them not to bark anymore or at all...so surely barking has to be close up to be considered barking AT strangers i hope !

i understand reading this that even barking at anyone can be now in GB perceived as dangerous unacceptable dog behaviour....and thinking to myself well dogs talk to their owners by barking just say asking for the ball in my case it is not aggressive but hey i am not going to prosecute myself lol !!! 

on the car issue well seems to me if the dog and you are approaching your car and your dog barks seeing a stranger next to it ...

if done from the distance if in countryside at say 100 yards i hardly call that barking at someone but just letting owner know someone is by the car ...surely barking at someone should include a common sense reasonable distance of closeness proximity to the person to be able to say if the dog is barking at them or just barking to its owner to alert owner....if you see the difference...a bark in itself is often not a threat by the dog just the dog sort of talking to its owner saying ...hey ! look there ! i see someone ! often the dog LOOKS at its owner in such cases i add !

as for barking if IN the car enclosed at anyone outside it...that is common with my and many others dogs...hardly think the law is going to kick up about that ? or are dogs barking through windows at people now not allowed ??? :001_unsure:

now if my dog is TALKING TO ME with barks whines or whatever and NOT looking at someone else around i hope that isnt going to be disapproved of !

i totally agree it is not acceptable in public for dogs to bark at strangers ... part of their socialisation one would hope !


----------

