Court Rules Dog Owner and Temporary Keeper Liable for Attack
Translated & summarized from Walla by baba
A Haifa court ordered both the registered owner and temporary keeper of a dog to pay compensation to a truck driver who was severely bitten in 2020. The court found both parties liable due to their control over the animal, rejecting claims of provocation. The driver was awarded approximately 58,000 shekels for his injuries and related expenses, with the defendants also covering legal costs.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- A Haifa court ruled both the dog's registered owner and temporary keeper liable for a 2020 dog bite attack.
- The court awarded the injured truck driver approximately 58,000 shekels in compensation.
- The judge rejected claims that the driver provoked the dog, citing insufficient evidence.
- The ruling established that liability can extend to the actual keeper, not just the registered owner.
- The dog's owner claimed he had given the animal away the day before the attack.
A Haifa Magistrate's Court has ordered both the registered owner of a dog and the individual who was temporarily holding the animal to compensate a truck driver who was bitten two years ago. The driver, 55, was attacked by a loose dog without a leash or muzzle in February 2020, sustaining deep, bleeding wounds to both hands and losing consciousness. The National Insurance Institute recognized the incident as a work accident, and a court-appointed expert determined the driver suffered permanent disability due to the resulting scars.
The plaintiff's attorney argued that both defendants were responsible for the damages, even without negligence on their part, and denied provoking the dog. The registered owner claimed he had given the dog as a gift to the second defendant the day before the attack, delaying the official transfer of ownership due to the Sabbath. The recipient of the dog, however, stated he was only holding the dog temporarily for breeding purposes with his own dog and therefore the original owner remained responsible.
Both defendants asserted the driver provoked the dog, citing a document from the Acre Health Bureau that mentioned "provocation," and sought to attribute full contributory negligence to the driver. Judge Hadar Masori rejected the registered owner's claim that he had permanently transferred the dog, finding it unproven and contradicted by his own testimony admitting the dog was given for breeding. The judge ruled that the individual who received the dog, even temporarily, was considered its "keeper" as he had tied it up, muzzled it, and kept it near his own dog.
The court found that the word "or" in the relevant law allows for multiple parties to be held liable, provided they had control and supervision over the dog. The claim of provocation was dismissed due to a lack of evidence beyond a single entry in a medical document. The driver was awarded 78,000 shekels for pain and suffering, past lost wages, and family assistance, minus compensation from the National Insurance Institute, resulting in a payment of approximately 58,000 shekels. The defendants were also ordered to cover the driver's legal fees and expert witness costs.