How many times does it happen that a dog goes for a walk with a different person than the one written in his identification booklet? This is more than normal for a family dog who may roam around or be entrusted to the care of several people, even if only one person owns his property. And the same can happen in everyday life to many singles who turn to relatives or friends so as not to leave their four-legged friend alone at home too much. But what happens if the dog bites or injures someone? Is the owner responsible even if he is absent and he thinks the dog is well cared for by someone else?
A recent ruling of the Supreme Court, number 21027-24, rewrites the “guilt” of personal injuries by stating that the dog bite constitutes a crime also for the owner who entrusts it to a third party and that the obligation of supervision must be fulfilled by providing adequate instructions to the person to whom you entrust your dog. This is a ruling that declares inadmissible an appeal for a conviction for negligent injury established by the court of Ferrara, confirming the same decision taken by the Justice of the Peace of Ferrara, against an owner of a Pit Bull who bit a passer-by in 2021 while he was entrusted to his mother’s care.
As stated in the reconstruction of the facts, the dog escaped from the gate of the house without a leash and muzzle and bit the hand of a man while he was trying to safeguard the safety of his dog, interposing himself between the animals, thus triggering the complaint. The owner of the Pit Bull had defended himself by saying that he was not present and that the dog had been entrusted to the care of his mother and that he considered it safe. But the blame remains with him. From the documents it emerges that in reality it was not possible to verify the real reliance on the woman who would then have omitted the surveillance, but the judges went further, establishing that in the event of damage to third parties the responsibility always lies with the owner who “in his absence must carry out supervision” with “the obligation to provide the temporary keeper with all types of preventive and necessary information, suitable to prevent the dog from escaping from the house or causing harm to third parties”.
“This is a very recent and certainly important ruling – states Claudia Taccani, Oipa lawyer -. In the past the jurisprudence had already ruled on the point, condemning the owner of another Pit Bull who had bitten a child while he was walking with his partner, a rather thin woman who had failed to keep him on a leash, had written that the owner had made a mistake in entrusting his dog, even temporarily, to a person who was not capable of managing it it is put in black and white that the responsibility can fall on the owner of an animal who has not adequately trained the temporary keeper. This underlines how important it always is, especially if you are dealing with large dogs or breeds that require particular management , choose capable people to avoid damage to third parties”.
However, this does not mean that even the temporary guardian is never responsible. “Article 27 of the Constitution says that criminal responsibility is personal – concludes the lawyer – and this is obviously a basic rule in court. But there may be exceptions, as in the case of this latest sentence, in addition to the fact that the personal responsibility does not exempt the owner from his responsibilities, even in his absence”.
v
