Discuss the following points:
1. Determination of whether the defendant bears compensation liability
Citizens enjoy the right to life and health. Animal keepers and managers bear the responsibility of managing the animals. If the kept animal causes damage to others’ personal safety or property, the animal keepers and managers shall bear civil liability. Article 127 of the General Principles of Civil Law stipulates: “If a kept animal causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear civil liability; if the damage is caused by the fault of the victim, the animal keeper or manager shall not bear civil liability; if the damage is caused by the fault of a third party, the third party shall bear civil liability.
” The elements to determine whether animal-caused harm leads to civil liability generally include: the direct injurious act of the kept or managed animal; the fact that the victim suffered damage; and a causal relationship between the injurious act and the damage. Article 127 stipulates two statutory exemptions: fault of the victim or fault of a third party. In this case, although the defendant, as the keeper and manager of the dog, has restrained the dog with an iron chain and performed certain supervisory duties, the objective fact remains that the dog bit the plaintiff causing injury, and there is a causal relationship between the biting act and the injury. Moreover, the defendant cannot provide evidence proving that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the plaintiff’s own fault or the fault of a third party.
According to the constitutive elements of animal injury liability, the defendant should bear responsibility. Further, the defendant’s fact of restraining the dog with an iron chain cannot completely guarantee that the dog will not cause harm; hence the defendant did not take reasonable measures to ensure the dog would not injure others. Therefore, the keeper is at fault. The plaintiff’s normal act of delivering goods to the company does not constitute fault.
Therefore, the defendant should bear compensation liability for the plaintiff’s economic losses.
2. Allocation of the burden of proof
Damage caused by animals is a special type of tort liability. According to the relevant provisions of the General Principles of Civil Law, civil liability arising from damage caused by animals does not require fault on the part of the animal keeper or manager. Thus, compensation for such tort cases applies the no-fault liability principle. According to the burden of proof distribution principle “he who asserts must prove,” absent special provisions, the victim must provide evidence to prove the fact of damage caused by the animal, the injurious act committed by the animal, and the causal relationship between the injurious act and the damage.
If the animal keeper or manager (i.e., the defendant) claims exemption, according to Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Supreme People’s Court “Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedures,” in animal damage tort litigation, the burden of proof for the victim’s fault or third party’s fault lies with the animal keeper or manager. They do not need to prove their own innocence but must prove that the damage was caused by the victim’s or a third party’s fault. If the evidence is sufficient, the keeper can be exempted from compensation.
If the evidence is insufficient or cannot be provided, the animal keeper or manager shall bear compensation liability for the animal damage.
Regarding the burden of proof sharing in animal damage cases, many believe this should be a reversal of the burden of proof; that is, in cases of reversed burden, the plaintiff has no responsibility to provide evidence. It is also generally believed that the eight types of tort litigation listed in Article 4 of the Supreme People’s Court “Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedures” are all reversed burden cases.
This is actually a misunderstanding and a one-sided view of reversed burden of proof. It is necessary to clarify this concept here. Reversal of burden of proof is an exception to the principle of “he who asserts must prove,” referring to a legal provision that shifts the obligation to provide evidence from the party who asserts a fact to the opposing party. If the opposing party cannot provide evidence, the plaintiff’s factual claim is presumed true.
The purpose of reversing the burden of proof is, in cases of damage, to balance the interests of the injuring and injured parties based on fairness and justice, reasonably sharing risks and compensating losses. In litigation, either plaintiff or defendant may bear some burden of proof. The defendant bearing the burden of proof does not automatically mean the burden is reversed; the plaintiff bearing the burden is simply allocation of proof responsibility.
In reversed burden cases, it does not mean the plaintiff bears no burden of proof and the defendant must prove everything; the plaintiff, as the injured party, also bears certain proof responsibilities, but these are lighter than in fault liability principles under no-fault liability.
Regarding a specific case, what the plaintiff must prove and what the defendant must prove relates to allocation of burden of proof and the scope of reversed burden.
A simple, practical method to judge whether burden of proof is reversed is to check if any elements of the tort do not have legal presumptions. If so, this may constitute reversal. Usually, elements requiring legal presumption are facts difficult for the victim to prove. Such presumptions reduce the victim’s burden, enabling easier compensation.
In animal damage liability, no legal presumptions apply. The plaintiff must prove all tort elements of animal injury liability. Since victim’s fault is not an element of tort liability, the plaintiff need not prove it, nor is that burden shifted to the defendant. In other words, even if the defendant proves no fault, he cannot be exempted from liability.
Specifically, in this case, the plaintiff should prove having been harmed by the animal; that the injuring animal was kept or managed by the defendant; and a causal relationship between the injuring act and the damage. If the defendant wants exemption, he must bear the burden of proof on facts excluding liability, i.e., plaintiff’s fault or third party’s fault. If the defendant fails, he bears the risk of losing.
Here, a brief analysis on the scope of reversed burden of proof is provided. Referring to the eight types of special tort litigation listed in Article 4 of the Supreme People’s Court “Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedures,” the scope varies by case. Some reverse only evidence on causality, e.g., environmental pollution damage claims reverse the burden only on proving no causal relationship between defendant’s conduct and damage; some reverse only fault liability, e.g., torts caused by collapse, falling or detachment of buildings or things on buildings, where owners or managers must prove no fault. This is a typical reversed burden case, applying fault presumption; owners must prove absence of fault (force majeure or third-party fault) to be exempt.
In torts caused by dangerous acts, reversal applies to the presumption of causality: if the dangerous act person cannot prove no causal relationship between act and damage, causality is presumed and liability imposed.
Some cases reverse burden both on fault and causality, e.g., medical malpractice lawsuits reverse both elements; medical institutions must prove absence of fault and causality to avoid liability.
Also, in patent infringement lawsuits due to new product manufacturing methods, the patent holder need only prove the patent infringement fact; the accused party must prove their method is not patented or not infringing, otherwise infringement is presumed. Here reversal applies only to proving identity of manufacturing method.
For high-risk operations causing injury, animal damage liability, and product defect damage, burden allocation is normal, not reversed.
Thus, analysis of these eight special torts shows reversed burden cases are limited in number. Not all special tort cases use reversed burden for proof allocation.
Therefore, the reversed burden of proof should not be considered uniformly but distinguished by case.
3. Whether mental distress compensation is supported
In this case, under the law, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff’s medical expenses, lost wages, nursing fees, etc. However, whether the plaintiff can claim corresponding mental distress compensation from the defendant is a focal point of dispute. It is known that the basic function of mental distress compensation is to compensate the victim for mental damage and soothe mental suffering.
The current law’s provisions on mental distress compensation mainly include Article 18 of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Personal Injury Compensation Cases, whereby when a victim or close relatives of a deceased suffer mental distress, they may request compensation from the court, which applies the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Determining Liability for Mental Injury Compensation in Civil Infringement.
Article 8 of the latter Interpretation states that where tort causes mental injury without serious consequences, compensation requests are generally unsupported; the court may order the infringer to cease infringement, restore reputation, eliminate harm, and apologize. For tort-caused mental injury with serious consequences, in addition to ordering the infringer to cease infringement and other civil liabilities, the court may order compensation for mental distress upon the victim’s request.
Legally, whether mental distress compensation is granted hinges on a proper “degree,” whose boundary is whether serious consequences resulted from the tortious mental injury. If no serious consequences occur, compensation is generally denied. In practice, how to judge “serious consequences” lacks clear legal standards. The Supreme People’s Court Interpretation’s Article 10, Paragraph 1 only regulates the amount determination for mental damage compensation.
Therefore, provisions on mental damage compensation are relatively vague and ambiguous; judicial practice offers no clear, concrete measuring standard, leaving judges considerable discretion. Judges must rely on case circumstances and principles of fairness and justice to decide. In this case, the animal injury’s consequences are not very serious, but considering the harmfulness and potential danger of dog bites and the fear and psychological worries caused to the victim’s future life, it is clear the victim has suffered mental distress.
Moreover, mental distress compensation primarily soothes the victim’s pain and provides partial relief, bearing a compensatory nature. Therefore, regarding the plaintiff’s claim for mental distress compensation, according to the fairness principle in civil law and judicial fairness, it should be granted at the court’s discretion.
4. Summary
Dog bite incidents are common in real life and increasingly attract attention, especially in rural and suburban areas where dog-related injuries occur frequently.
Given the harm and potential danger of dog bites, government departments must strictly supervise, and animal keepers or managers should cautiously and strictly control their animals. If animals cause damage to others, according to Chinese laws, the keeper or manager bears no-fault liability for personal injury compensation caused by dog bites and must fully compensate the victim for related losses according to law.
。