Letter to the Attorney

Dear Attorney,

I am writing to seek your professional advice regarding an incident involving my pet dog and a child in our neighborhood. Recently, my dog chased a child, causing the child to fall and sustain a head injury. Upon learning of the incident, we immediately approached the child’s father and offered to take the child to a nearby hospital for medical care. However, the father refused our offer.

My concern is about potential legal liability. If the child’s injury worsens or any complications arise, who would be held responsible under Philippine law? Would the liability fall on us because the injury occurred due to my dog’s actions, or would it shift to the father because he declined our offer to provide medical assistance?

I would deeply appreciate your guidance on this matter.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Dog Owner

Legal Discussion on Liability for Injuries Caused by Dog Chasing Under Philippine Law

In the Philippines, liability for incidents involving animals, including dogs, is governed primarily by the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly Articles 2176 and 2183. Additionally, principles of negligence and contributory responsibility under Philippine jurisprudence are relevant in determining legal responsibility in such cases.

1. Applicable Legal Framework

Article 2183 of the Civil Code: Liability of Animal Owners

This provision explicitly addresses situations where injuries or damages are caused by animals:

"The possessor of an animal or whoever makes use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only if it is proved that the damage was caused by the injured party's own fault or by force majeure."

Under this provision, as the owner of the dog, you are presumed liable for any injury or damage caused by your dog unless it can be proven that:

The injured party contributed to the incident (e.g., the child provoked the dog), or
The injury was caused by a fortuitous event (force majeure).

Article 2176 of the Civil Code: Quasi-Delict

A quasi-delict occurs when an act or omission causes damage to another, even in the absence of a contractual relationship:

"Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done."

If negligence can be attributed to you, whether by failing to control your dog or not taking reasonable steps to prevent the chase, you may also be held liable under this provision.

2. Duty of Care and Negligence

As a dog owner, you have a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure that your pet does not harm others. If the incident occurred in a public space, failure to leash or secure your dog may constitute a breach of this duty. Conversely, if the incident occurred within the boundaries of your private property and the child entered without permission, your liability might be mitigated, as the child could be considered a trespasser.

3. Offer of Assistance and the Father's Refusal

The father’s refusal to accept your offer of medical assistance introduces an important factor. While your initial responsibility stems from the dog’s role in causing the injury, the refusal could be considered an intervening event that impacts causation and the extent of liability.

Doctrine of Proximate Cause

Under Philippine law, proximate cause refers to the primary cause of an injury, without which the injury would not have occurred. If the injury worsens due to the father’s refusal of your reasonable offer to provide medical care, you may argue that the father’s decision constitutes an intervening cause, reducing or eliminating your liability for subsequent complications.

Contributory Negligence

Article 2179 of the Civil Code provides:

"When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded."

The father’s refusal to allow medical intervention could be seen as contributory negligence, which may mitigate your liability.

4. Legal Remedies and Preventive Measures

To protect yourself from potential claims, consider the following actions:

Documentation: Record all details of the incident, including your offer to assist and the father’s refusal. Witness statements can strengthen your case if disputes arise.
Settlement Efforts: Proactively offer a written settlement or compromise agreement to the family, acknowledging the incident but stipulating the father’s refusal of assistance. Ensure the agreement is notarized to strengthen its enforceability.
Animal Control: Implement measures to prevent future incidents, such as keeping your dog leashed in public areas or properly securing your property.

5. Potential Civil and Criminal Liabilities

While the case primarily involves civil liability, criminal charges could arise under the Revised Penal Code if gross negligence is proven to have caused serious physical injuries. However, given that the injury resulted from a fall rather than a direct attack by the dog, such charges are unlikely unless aggravated circumstances are present.

6. Practical Implications

If complications occur due to the head injury, liability will depend on the interplay of the following factors:

Whether the injury was foreseeable and preventable by you as the dog owner.
The father’s decision to refuse medical assistance, which could shift part of the blame to him.

7. Court Precedents

Philippine courts have consistently emphasized the duty of animal owners to exercise control over their pets. In cases where contributory negligence or intervening events are evident, damages awarded are typically reduced.

Conclusion

Under Philippine law, as the dog owner, you are initially presumed liable for the child’s injury caused by the chase. However, the father’s refusal to accept your offer of medical assistance introduces mitigating factors that may reduce or shift liability. To safeguard your legal standing, you should document the incident, consider an amicable settlement, and implement preventive measures to avoid similar incidents in the future.

Should you face a legal complaint, you may argue that the father’s refusal was an intervening cause that contributed to any worsening of the injury. Engaging an experienced lawyer early in the process will ensure your rights are protected and that liability is fairly apportioned.