ARTICLE
23 September 2012

Who let the dog in?: a case of occuper's liability

The Court agreed that the presence of the dog in the house did not pose a foreseeable risk of injury to visitors.
Australia Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The plaintiff got an unexpected surprise after entering her brother's house to find herself in the same room as 'Cougar', her brother's bull mastiff-kelpie hunting dog. Cougar was usually kept outside and often in a cage. Although Cougar did not rush at the plaintiff or bark or show any aggression, the plaintiff rushed back out the door, closed the screen door behind her, lost her footing and injured herself in a fall. The plaintiff admitted under cross-examination that her panicked reaction was not rational. She had a fear of dogs.

The plaintiff sued her brother and was unsuccessful at trial. She appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. It was noted that the plaintiff's brother, as occupier, owed a duty to protect visitors to the property from a 'not insignificant' risk which could reasonably be foreseen and avoided. However, the Court of Appeal agreed with the finding of the trial judge that the presence of the dog in the house did not pose a foreseeable risk of injury to visitors. It was not reasonably foreseeable that a visitor to the property would have a general fear of dogs or that they would react to Cougar being in the house in the way that the plaintiff reacted.

Navakovic v Stekovic

The question of whether a risk of injury is reasonably foreseeable and 'not insignificant' should not be assessed through the prism of hindsight.


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More