# Dog attacked neighbours cat



## jmn04 (7 January 2016)

Hi, need some advice please.. 

A friends two dogs were both on their leads returning to their property in the dark when just a few feet from the
front door they saw the neighbours cat sat on the grass. There is a boundary running along the front lawn but no fencing.
The small patch of grass is shared and despite it being dark we believe the cat was technically on its own land.
The 2 properties front doors are no more than 7ft apart and the grass square in question measures 5ft wide by 8ft deep max! Perhaps irrelevant but trying to indicate how close the properties are.

Due to the dark my friend was unable to see the cat and due to the dogs reactions thought perhaps it was a hedgehog. 
A short few seconds attack followed which resulted in the dogs being pulled away once their owner realised what was happening.

Nevertheless, the cat needed vet treatment for stitches and although it had a dislocated foot/knee joint - not leg - we cannot be 100% this injury was sustained in the attack - it could well be the reason the dogs on this occasion were able to actually catch the cat! They have been neighbours for 1 year and this is the 1st incident.

The cat ran away, my friend put the dogs inside the property and alerted the neighbours as to what has happened, both parties then searched for the cat together. Upon its return the injuries were assessed and a trip to the vets deemed appropriate by the cat owners. 

My friend, out of good faith and feeling somewhat responsible, immediately offered to pay them for the initial vet bill of £600, which they have accepted. My friend has been informed further costs are expected to be similar as the cat was returned to the vet on Boxing day.

It should be made clear these are not dangerous dogs and I believe my friend was in control of both when the attack happened. She was able to pull them back away from the cat almost immediately despite their strength and they obeyed.

It is my understanding the neighbours fully expect her to pay the remainder of the bill - they have stated they choose not to insure their pets.

They have also stated they intend to seek advice on the appropriate course of action - quite what that means I am not sure at this point. 

1. Should my friend be concerned over losing her dogs?
2. Should my friend pay the remainder of the bill despite already paying at least half.
3. Should my friend speak to a solicitor?
4. I am of the opinion this is a 50/50 case. Dogs chase cats, fact of life!, cats chase birds, mice, other small animals and have been ****t1ng in her garden since kittens. 

Had their cat injured the dog too (eye scram) would they also be liable. Their cat is let outside to roam free and they have to accept responsibility for whatever could happen, no??

Advice thoughts appreciated..
Thanks


----------



## ester (7 January 2016)

1) No
2) yes
3) no


----------



## Bellasophia (7 January 2016)

I think your fiend is liable as the cat was on its own turf...therefore she should pay all the bill.
...

had the cat entered her garden,then I would say no liability on the dog owners part,as they were in their own garden and cat entered their space.


----------



## blackcob (7 January 2016)

I would suggest contacting Trevor Cooper @ http://doglaw.co.uk/ before entering into any more discourse with the neighbour.


----------



## Amymay (7 January 2016)

Your friend is liable.  End of.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

Dog attacking a dog, your friend is libel, dog attacking cat your friend isn't - unless they were inciting fights, or you allowed the dog to enter a fenced property.


----------



## jmn04 (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			Dog attacking a dog, your friend is libel, dog attacking cat your friend isn't - unless they were inciting fights.
		
Click to expand...

She's an elderly lady with no prior convictions  ..no inciting fights!!!


----------



## jmn04 (7 January 2016)

if you or someone has a moment can you elaborate on why she isn't liable due to the fight being with a Cat please??


----------



## _GG_ (7 January 2016)

OP - I'm with Ester on this. 

There's no legal action that the neighbours can take if the vet bill is paid in full by your friend. This is something I do think she should do...not just morally, but legally. It's irrelevant that she could pull the dogs off quickly, being on a lead doesn't automatically mean there is control. In this case, for that moment, they weren't and if your neighbour wants to argue that, it is worth imagining the cat was a child. Control wouldn't come into it...it's about the fact that the cat was on it's own property and your friends dogs were able to go onto that property and attack it. A lead clearly made no difference to that fact, it just meant that your friend was able to act quickly to limit damage. 
I don't think your friend needs to speak to a solicitor...but it might put her mind at rest if she does.

On your final point, I disagree. This isn't 50/50. Your friends dogs attacked a cat that was on it's own property, end of. No other scenario's are relevant.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

jmn04 said:



			if you or someone has a moment can you elaborate on why she isn't liable due to the fight being with a Cat please??
		
Click to expand...

The feral nature of cats means they have little protection by law - if you hit a dog with a car you are libel, if you hit a cat you aren't.


----------



## _GG_ (7 January 2016)

The law now actually allows the police to issue a Community Protection Notice to dog owners upon complain and one of the complaints allowed is that people fear for the safety of their cats. 
The law also states that dogs are deemed to be out of control if they attack a persons animal. This doesn't cover wild or stray animals, but a pet or animal owned by a person that is attacked by a dog does fall into this. 

So, your friends neighbours are not at risk of losing the dogs, they are liable for the damages as their dogs were, by law, out of control and as I have just learned, their neighbours could report the dogs, leading to possible action. 
More on that here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-What-pet-owners-need-to-know-from-today.html

Visit gov.uk for more information if you need it. There have been lots of regular changes to animal laws in the UK in the last couple of years.


----------



## Dry Rot (7 January 2016)

amymay said:



			Your friend is liable.  End of.
		
Click to expand...


No, she's not! A cat owner who allows her cat to stray, as they do, must take the consequences.


----------



## _GG_ (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			The feral nature of cats means they have little protection by law - if you hit a dog with a car you are libel, if you hit a cat you aren't.
		
Click to expand...

That is absolutely true for that specific situation. Hit a cat and you have no legal requirement to report it. However, the dog laws state that a dog is out of control if it attacks a persons animal. Cats are not exempt from that, no owned animal is.


----------



## _GG_ (7 January 2016)

Dry Rot said:



			No, she's not! A cat owner who allows her cat to stray, as they do, must take the consequences.
		
Click to expand...

The cat was on the cat owners property...that is not straying. All the law requires to deem a dog as out of control is that it attacks a persons animal...it doesn't require that persons animal to be in a designated area. 

I'm more than happy to learn/be corrected, just going off what the GOV.uk pages say as they are the only place you can rely on to get the current laws.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (7 January 2016)

jmn04 said:



			4. I am of the opinion this is a 50/50 case. Dogs chase cats, fact of life!, cats chase birds, mice, other small animals and have been ****t1ng in her garden since kittens. 

Thanks
		
Click to expand...

others have answered the other points but I'll take issue with the above-dogs do not have to chase cats and should be trained to not chase cats-if only to stop them chasing one across a road. Dogs should not be chasing anything other than what an owner tells it to. 

MoC-owner of both dog and cat!


----------



## _GG_ (7 January 2016)

MotherOfChickens said:



			others have answered the other points but I'll take issue with the above-dogs do not have to chase cats and should be trained to not chase cats-if only to stop them chasing one across a road. Dogs should not be chasing anything other than what an owner tells it to. 

MoC-owner of both dog and cat!
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I can call my JRT away mid chase if I want to. He doesn't like it, but he listens and comes back, albeit slowly and begrudgingly. lol


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

_GG_ said:



			The law now actually allows the police to issue a Community Protection Notice to dog owners upon complain and one of the complaints allowed is that people fear for the safety of their cats. 
The law also states that dogs are deemed to be out of control if they attack a persons animal. This doesn't cover wild or stray animals, but a pet or animal owned by a person that is attacked by a dog does fall into this. 

So, your friends neighbours are not at risk of losing the dogs, they are liable for the damages as their dogs were, by law, out of control and as I have just learned, their neighbours could report the dogs, leading to possible action. 
More on that here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-What-pet-owners-need-to-know-from-today.html

Visit gov.uk for more information if you need it. There have been lots of regular changes to animal laws in the UK in the last couple of years.
		
Click to expand...

If you read the legislation itself it applies to loose dogs that are allowed to stray (there is case law quoted in the legislation and it referred to loose dogs and owners feeling they had to keep their dogs indoors - all the owner would have to do here to protect her cat would be to put up a fence). As the dog was on the lead, the property was unfenced and only 5 feet deep, and the dog was immediately removed, I doubt any court would find them libel.


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (7 January 2016)

ester said:



			1) No
2) yes
3) no
		
Click to expand...

This ^

 of cause she needs  to pay the bill


----------



## _GG_ (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			If you read the legislation itself it applies to loose dogs that are allowed to stray (there is case law quoted in the legislation and it referred to loose dogs and owners feeling they had to keep their dogs indoors - all the owner would have to do here to protect her cat would be to put up a fence). As the dog was on the lead, the property was unfenced and only 5 feet deep, and the dog was immediately removed, I doubt any court would find them libel.
		
Click to expand...

Haven't got to that bit yet, but did find this...

&#8220;Protected animal&#8221;

An animal is a &#8220;protected animal&#8221; for the purposes of this Act if&#8212;
(a)it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,

(b)it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or

(c)it is not living in a wild state.

So going by that legislation, cats, including the one in this case, would be protected I believe?


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

_GG_ said:



			That is absolutely true for that specific situation. Hit a cat and you have no legal requirement to report it. However, the dog laws state that a dog is out of control if it attacks a persons animal. Cats are not exempt from that, no owned animal is.
		
Click to expand...

Hmm - there have been numerous cases reported on here where a horse has been injured by a dog when hacking and, because it wasn't the person injured, the police have been unable to act, despite the revisions. I'd be interested to read the legislation, and any resulting case law, where this has been upheld. My OH is keen to start an equine law practice to assist people seeking damages when injured due to loose dogs when hacking.

ETA - cross posted. I'm not sure you can include cats in the 'under control of man'. This is only partly said tongue in cheek. I'm not sure if you would ever class them as domesticated either lol


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (7 January 2016)

Dry Rot said:



			No, she's not! A cat owner who allows her cat to stray, as they do, must take the consequences.
		
Click to expand...

  This is a bit harsh since cats do wander and already OP said the cat most likely was in its own garden.   The word Allows is saying  we are negligent to *ALLOW* them to wander............ and have to restrain our cats which is not the case as it is for dogs. There is no law which says you have to keep a cat restricted. 


  A dog  owner needs to be vigilant at all times - this could just as easily been a child.


----------



## _GG_ (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			Hmm - there have been numerous cases reported on here where a horse has been injured by a dog when hacking and, because it wasn't the person injured, the police have been unable to act, despite the revisions. I'd be interested to read the legislation, and any resulting case law, where this has been upheld. My OH is keen to start an equine law practice to assist people seeking damages when injured due to loose dogs when hacking.

ETA - cross posted. I'm not sure you can include cats in the 'under control of man'. This is only partly said tongue in cheek. I'm not sure if you would ever class them as domesticated either lol
		
Click to expand...

Haha, I personally wouldn't ever class a cat as "under control of man" either, lol. 

Very interesting that your OH wants to do that. I think it is very much needed on many levels. Not mearly for the fact that by attacking a horse, a dog is putting human life in direct danger, so I don't see how the law can NOT recognise that?

I think domestication just means that an animal is trained to live in close conjunction with humans, as a pet or otherwise, so I think a cat would fall under this. Very interesting!

Either way, morally, I would cover the entire vet bill. My dogs are my responsibility and anything they do comes back to me, so I would pay what needed to be paid and be very very sorry.


----------



## Amymay (7 January 2016)

Dry Rot said:



			No, she's not! A cat owner who allows her cat to stray, as they do, must take the consequences.
		
Click to expand...

It wasn't straying.  It was sat in its garden.


----------



## jrp204 (7 January 2016)

Dry Rot said:



			No, she's not! A cat owner who allows her cat to stray, as they do, must take the consequences.
		
Click to expand...

The cat was on its own property so technically wasn't straying.


----------



## calmgirl (7 January 2016)

What about contacting the dog owners insurance? Either her dog or house insurance may help with the vet bills??


----------



## Dry Rot (7 January 2016)

HGA-12 said:



			This is a bit harsh since cats do wander and already OP said the cat most likely was in its own garden.   The word Allows is saying  we are negligent to *ALLOW* them to wander............ and have to restrain our cats which is not the case as it is for dogs. There is no law which says you have to keep a cat restricted. 


  A dog  owner needs to be vigilant at all times - this could just as easily been a child.
		
Click to expand...

Quoting a post out of context is also a bit harsh. I merely mirrored Amymay's usual curt response in the manner of the standard pantomine reply! "Oh no it isn't!". Got it now?

If someone can quote the legislation on this point, I'd be very interested to see it. I was not aware that cats could be controlled in the same way a dog can be controlled. The law considers them differently for that reason. Not wild, but not controlled either. I know an owner is not liable if his dog attacks a stray sheep on his own property as he has no duty of care towards the sheep. On the other hand, he may not set his dog on the sheep. I doubt whether cats have more rights than sheep, but I am ready to be proved wrong -- given the proper legal reference, of course, and not just guesswork.


----------



## jmn04 (7 January 2016)

So what action can the cat owner take?!  Legal action to cover vet costs in small claims court?
Can they sue for any other costs?! 
Can they demand the dog is taken away or cause any trouble for the dog owner?!?


----------



## 9tails (7 January 2016)

Why were the dogs allowed even a few seconds to launch an attack?  You mention that the lady thought it was a hedgehog, is it reasonable for dogs to attack a hedgehog?


----------



## Tiddlypom (7 January 2016)

calmgirl said:



			What about contacting the dog owners insurance? Either her dog or house insurance may help with the vet bills??
		
Click to expand...

This.


----------



## Clodagh (7 January 2016)

Mian thing is your friend has to continue living next door to the cat owner so everyone needs to be content, to that end it is probably worth paying all the bill just for peace and quiet and neighbourly relations.
I hugely dislike the rights given to cats and think they are a vermin species but appreciate that some people like them. A better outside light might help, so your friend can see if the cat is there when she is getting home with the dogs.


----------



## jmn04 (7 January 2016)

9tails said:



			Why were the dogs allowed even a few seconds to launch an attack?  You mention that the lady thought it was a hedgehog, is it reasonable for dogs to attack a hedgehog?
		
Click to expand...

No, but they wouldnt have attacked a hedgedog.. just been interested in it.


----------



## _GG_ (7 January 2016)

Dry Rot said:



			Quoting a post out of context is also a bit harsh. I merely mirrored Amymay's usual curt response in the manner of the standard pantomine reply! "Oh no it isn't!". Got it now?

If someone can quote the legislation on this point, I'd be very interested to see it. I was not aware that cats could be controlled in the same way a dog can be controlled. The law considers them differently for that reason. Not wild, but not controlled either. I know an owner is not liable if his dog attacks a stray sheep on his own property as he has no duty of care towards the sheep. On the other hand, he may not set his dog on the sheep. I doubt whether cats have more rights than sheep, but I am ready to be proved wrong -- given the proper legal reference, of course, and not just guesswork.
		
Click to expand...


Protected animal

An animal is a protected animal for the purposes of this Act if
(a)it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,

(b)it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or

(c)it is not living in a wild state.

So going by that legislation, cats, including the one in this case, would be protected I believe?

It's not about controlling the cat. It was, in any case, on its own property. It is about the fact that cats fall under the above legislation and are therefore protected. To that end, the owner of anything that attacks them is liable.


----------



## CAYLA (7 January 2016)

I would pay the bill. Mainly because the laws are now supposedly stricter in regards to "complaints" made against your dog/'s now resulting in them being potentially carted away for temperament tests and being slapped with asbos lol meaning the owner now has to kee the dogs under the radar for fear of any other complaints. However I do agree its foolish to own a cat and allow it out without adequate insurance. You let a cat out (yes I have a cat) you take huge risks with its welfare. They are lucky it was not a deliberate attack by kids with lurchers  as they would just laugh and hot foot it but the ladies honesty has landed her a big vet bill.  
If her dogs where on a lead she is obs is not irresponsible it was dark. If the neighbours get awkward I would be too and ask if the cat is chipped and they can prove it's theirs. Otherwise pay the bill even though they could claim forever more!


----------



## jmn04 (7 January 2016)

CAYLA said:



			Otherwise pay the bill even though they could claim forever more!
		
Click to expand...

...how can they claim for ever more!?


----------



## CAYLA (7 January 2016)

Well if they want to be awkward they could come knocking in a month because they cat is lame and needs pain meds and vets recons it's related to the attack ( if you get my drift)


----------



## ester (7 January 2016)

Does the friend own their house, do the neighbours own their house?

I do think if you have to live next door to someone and intend to for many years to come then that makes a difference too.

and if I had dogs that would go for a cat I would make sure I had a headtorch on in the dark.


----------



## _GG_ (7 January 2016)

CAYLA said:



			Well if they want to be awkward they could come knocking in a month because they cat is lame and needs pain meds and vets recons it's related to the attack ( if you get my drift)
		
Click to expand...

There are, unfortunately some people out there that would do this. Sad, but true. 

Might be an interesting addition to the thread, although was before the recent changes in law. 

When my collie was 2 years old, we had a non-incident with him. I was out the back of my house, de-icing the car and a lady with a pushchair and a young girl walking beside her crossed the end of our street, about 15 yards away from me and my garden gate. My collie, Stig, had come out to see me...jumping an 8ft fence to do so, but he just crept up to me and sat by my foot. The girl ran at us screaming with excitement, Stig isn't great with kids, so I grabbed him (he was actually wagging his tail mind you) and I shouted at the girl to stop, then told her he doesn't like strangers and not to come any closer. Her mum didn't move but watched it all. I took Stig inside, the girl got no closer than about 8ft from him with me between them. When I came back out, the mother (if you could call her that) had left her young son in his pushchair on the side of a very busy main road and was walking over to my car with a pen and notebook. She got to her daughter and told her to stop crying. That was it. I'm sure the child was crying because I had shouted at her to stop, but that's all the mother said to her. She asked for my name and address, told me she was going to call the police to report a dog attack on her daughter and that, I quote, "her dad, I'm not with him anymore, I'm with my sons dad now, but her dad is going to pay you a ******* visit later", so rather threatening to say the least. I gave her my information and told her to do whatever she wanted to as my dog hadn't been anywhere near her child so I had nothing to worry about. She went on to lecture me on keeping children safe and how dangerous dogs are blah blah blah. I stood and listened for about 2 minutes and finally got fed up and said that if she was such a model parent, perhaps she should return to the toddler she had left and turned her back on, right next to a very busy, fast road. She was furious but left. 

I went in, called the dog warden and local police station to ask for advice. Had a few calls of the mother through the morning to say that she had reported me and that I'd be getting a knock on the door soon. Each time, I called the police again, they hadn't had any calls. The dog warden had been called but she couldn't find any marks of any kind on the little girl, so she wouldn't do anything. Then the police woman called me back and said that they would send someone out as the mother had a GP certificate to say that the girl had a puncture wound on her leg. I had the police woman call the dog warden and the last I heard from the police was that they were visiting the mother on concern of a/wasting police time, b/ deception and c/in relation to possible inflicted harm on the child in order to deceive or close to those words. 

The dog warden came to visit me to put my mind at rest...even walked Stig and Hollie with me and commented on how extremely well trained they were. All sorted you'd think. Nope! Early that evening, 10 minutes after I had cried the stress out all over Dan when he got home to work and there was a knock at the door. There was a big burly man at the door, collecting a statement for his client...a no win no fee compensation solicitor! I wasn't very kind in telling him to do one before I call the police. 

Some people are awful. Some situations are totally innocent. I look back at this though and I am so so careful with the dogs and other people now. If the laws then were as they are now, just the fact that the mum could have said she felt threatened would have been enough to label my dog as dangerous. 

It's a scary world and I think the vast majority of the time, doing the right moral thing will help prevent anything escalating, but it's always worth keeping in the back of your mind that for some people, that's never enough.


----------



## webble (7 January 2016)

_GG_ said:



			OP - I'm with Ester on this. 

There's no legal action that the neighbours can take if the vet bill is paid in full by your friend. This is something I do think she should do...not just morally, but legally. It's irrelevant that she could pull the dogs off quickly, being on a lead doesn't automatically mean there is control. In this case, for that moment, they weren't and if your neighbour wants to argue that, it is worth imagining the cat was a child. Control wouldn't come into it...it's about the fact that the cat was on it's own property and your friends dogs were able to go onto that property and attack it. A lead clearly made no difference to that fact, it just meant that your friend was able to act quickly to limit damage. 
I don't think your friend needs to speak to a solicitor...but it might put her mind at rest if she does.

On your final point, I disagree. This isn't 50/50. Your friends dogs attacked a cat that was on it's own property, end of. No other scenario's are relevant.
		
Click to expand...

Sums up exactly what I wanted to say


----------



## SusieT (7 January 2016)

If someone one here came on and  said their horse had a puncture wound from being  by a dog allowed to come too close- I think the unanimous answer would be claim vets fees off the dog. same differnece.


----------



## sarahw123 (7 January 2016)

Your friend should pay 100% of vet fees.


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (7 January 2016)

If you are in charge of dogs and they attack ANY other thing: animal or human, then YOU and you only are responsible and should take that responsibility seriously, and recompense where necessary and also make sure the incident is never repeated.

It sounds like these two dogs in question were allowed to be out of control and need a bit of remedial training TBH, yes appreciate dogs WILL chase a cat when it pops up from nowhere but they need to respect the fact of being on a lead/close-control.

I think OP your friend should just pay up and look sweet. Did I hear it right that the owner of the cat is an "elderly neighbour"?? If so, then the poor old duck is probably pretty shook up about the whole thing and is desperately worried that her beloved Puss has had an awful experience and might not make it. If the friend's dogs are responsible, then friend should foot the full costs of any vets bills plus some (and make sure she keeps the dogs under control in future).


----------



## Alec Swan (7 January 2016)

_GG_ said:



			&#8220;Protected animal&#8221;

An animal is a &#8220;protected animal&#8221; for the purposes of this Act if&#8212;
(a)it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,

(b)it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or

(c)it is not living in a wild state.

So going by that legislation, cats, including the one in this case, would be protected I believe?

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Not really going to get in to this,  but I believe that your point fails,  at (b).  Cats are considered to be feral (even if they aren't!),  if we hit a cat with our car there is no need to report the matter to the Police.  If we hit a dog with our car,  then we're obliged to do so.  (Feral to mean not expected to be under the full time control of their owner,  as dogs are).  In short,  when given their freedom,  cats are not under the control of their owner,  nor considered so.  If a cat which was identifiable caused say a fatal road accident,  then the owner wouldn't be liable,  but were it an identifiable dog,  then the owners would be liable.  

The case in question has the dog owner fail if the cat was on the property of its owner.  Were the cat on the property of the dog's owner,  then that's a different matter,  and they wouldn't be considered liable.  By now it would be a bit late to argue the point that the cat 'may' have been previously injured.

jmn04,  your friend's honest and decent approach to the problem should be limited to the (remarkable) figure of £600 for the vet's bill.  I would resist however,  any further demands for payment,  as it would sound to me,  suspiciously as though the situation was being 'milked'.

Alec.


----------



## paddi22 (7 January 2016)

Owner of dogs should pay vets bill 100%. I'd be mortified if my dog attacked my neighbours cat. If I even thought there was any chance of it attacking any animal I would keep a muzzle on the dog unless I had 100% recall. I can't understand why there would be any question about who pays. Cat was on its own property and dog entered that property and attacked. The fact that it's an elderly neighbour would remove any remaining doubts about who pays. 

Why should an elderly woman, who might only be on a small pension pay hundreds for vets bill because an owner can't control their dog???  I'd be absolutely mortfifed if it was me, and i'd happily pay any bills to remedy the situation.


----------



## paddi22 (7 January 2016)

Does it matter if it was a cat? what if it had been a child holding a rabbit or guinea pig? Owner shouldn't have allowed dogs off lead if they couldn't recall them properly.


----------



## Honey08 (7 January 2016)

I'm absolutely shocked at the OP and dog owner's attitude.  If my dog attacked someone else's cat to the extent that has been described here I would be mortified.  I can't even quite understand how someone can have so little control of dogs on leads that it could even happen, is she very old and not really capable of controlling her dogs or seeing/hearing what is happening? Should she actually be in charge of dogs? It seems like you're quibbling about the dislocation and extent of damage and more worried about what may happen to the ladies dogs than stepping up and doing the right thing.  I'm rather disgusted.  Pay the blimmin bill for the damage the dogs have done.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

paddi22 said:



			Does it matter if it was a cat? what if it had been a child holding a rabbit or guinea pig? Owner shouldn't have allowed dogs off lead if they couldn't recall them properly.
		
Click to expand...

They didn't have the dog off the lead, the cat was in a very shallow (5ft) unfenced garden and the dog lunged, then was immediately pulled off. It reads that the lapse was momentary...


----------



## Orca (7 January 2016)

Honey08 said:



			I'm absolutely shocked at the OP and dog owner's attitude.  If my dog attacked someone else's cat to the extent that has been described here I would be mortified.  I can't even quite understand how someone can have so little control of dogs on leads that it could even happen, is she very old and not really capable of controlling her dogs or seeing/hearing what is happening? Should she actually be in charge of dogs? It seems like you're quibbling about the dislocation and extent of damage and more worried about what may happen to the ladies dogs than stepping up and doing the right thing.  I'm rather disgusted.  Pay the blimmin bill for the damage the dogs have done.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. 

Cats are domesticated animals with ' freedom to roam' and as such, are protected by the laws previously quoted. I have to admit, I'm not a fan of cats these days but I'm even less of a fan of people who can't control their dogs. I had a dog once, who had been previously trained to hunt and kill cats like vermin. Within a week of retraining, he could be trusted to live with them. I understand that prey drive can be very difficult to overcome but it doesn't sound like this cat ran off in a way which might trigger that response. It was pounced upon. Awful and inexcusable. It's a handlers responsibility to be switched on 100% of the time when in public. I have Shar Peis and this is certainly the case with them. Preempting prevents any potential problems.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

Orca said:



			Agreed. 

Cats are domesticated animals with ' freedom to roam' and as such, are protected by the laws previously quoted. I have to admit, I'm not a fan of cats these days but I'm even less of a fan of people who can't control their dogs. I had a dog once, who had been previously trained to hunt and kill cats like vermin. Within a week of retraining, he could be trusted to live with them. I understand that prey drive can be very difficult to overcome but it doesn't sound like this cat ran off in a way which might trigger that response. It was pounced upon. Awful and inexcusable. It's a handlers responsibility to be switched on 100% of the time when in public. I have Shar Peis and this is certainly the case with them. Preempting prevents any potential problems.
		
Click to expand...

Cats are considered feral once off the owners property. To be honest they have no protection under law once this has occurred and any fate may fall upon them without consequence.

However I think the dog owner should pay! I say that with one caveat. Do not pay until you get a full vet report regarding injuries and likely cause . You have to entertain the possibility that the second vets visit may be due to say a secondary incident that has caused a problem with the healing process should the dog owner still have to stump up if thats the case. You also have to entertain the possibility that the treatment is in excess of what may be strictly necessary to put the cat back to its same condition it was in before the attack

Hate to say it but I think its a situation where your friend would have been better off keeping her mouth shut.
Im a little disturbed by her neighbours veiled threat about further action and maybe a trip to see a solicitor is in order. Has your friend considered claiming on her house insurance as any third party liability cover should cover this and maybe an insurance company getting involved may temper the demands somewhat. In hindsight they would be my first port of call tomorrow morning!!


----------



## SusieT (7 January 2016)

incorrect- you cannot for example hit a cat or be cruel to it because it is free roaming- it still counts as animal cruelty.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (7 January 2016)

For the fifth time, the cat was on the owner's property. 

Dog owner should pay the £600, but I'd want a call from the vet re the other £600, just to check. The bill could well rise hugely if the cat needs pins in the leg. 

If an owner chooses not to insure, fine, but if a dog attacked mine, I would ask for details but if I got nothing, I'd use my insurance. Bit silly not to insure, IMO, personal choice, I know, but it's not ideal. You never know what's going to happen. 



HGA-12 said:



			A dog  owner needs to be vigilant at all times - this could just as easily been a child.
		
Click to expand...

Why do people always say that? Do you think the dogs would have attacked a child?


----------



## _GG_ (7 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Not really going to get in to this,  but I believe that your point fails,  at (b).  Cats are considered to be feral (even if they aren't!),  if we hit a cat with our car there is no need to report the matter to the Police.  If we hit a dog with our car,  then we're obliged to do so.  (Feral to mean not expected to be under the full time control of their owner,  as dogs are).  In short,  when given their freedom,  cats are not under the control of their owner,  nor considered so.  If a cat which was identifiable caused say a fatal road accident,  then the owner wouldn't be liable,  but were it an identifiable dog,  then the owners would be liable.  

The case in question has the dog owner fail if the cat was on the property of its owner.  Were the cat on the property of the dog's owner,  then that's a different matter,  and they wouldn't be considered liable.  By now it would be a bit late to argue the point that the cat 'may' have been previously injured.

jmn04,  your friend's honest and decent approach to the problem should be limited to the (remarkable) figure of £600 for the vet's bill.  I would resist however,  any further demands for payment,  as it would sound to me,  suspiciously as though the situation was being 'milked'.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It's not my point Alec, it's the legislation of England and Wales. According to UK law regarding cats, they are defined as companion animals (pets) if they are linked to or living at a single property and have an identifiable owner. In fact, even feral cats under the law can be considered companion animals where a person will accept responsibility for them. Perception or personal beliefs aren't relevant. 

That goes for the comparison with a car hitting a cat as well. That's a cat roaming, not a cat sat in it's owners property doing nothing wrong. In that instance, the cat is protected by UK law. 

It's just details, but details matter...there's little point going into other scenarios when they won't give any clarity to the situation.


----------



## Alec Swan (7 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

The case in question has the dog owner fail if the cat was on the property of its owner.  &#8230;&#8230;..

Alec.
		
Click to expand...




_GG_ said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. . That's a cat roaming, not a cat sat in it's owners property doing nothing wrong. In that instance, the cat is protected by UK law. 

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Presumably you read the line above.  The dog owner is therefore responsible.  Period! 

Alec.


----------



## Dry Rot (7 January 2016)

Due to my cynical and sceptical nature, I am guessing the OP is a law student who has been set this conundrum by her tutor! 

That apart, I love the way these threads take on a life of their own because posters forget to read the original post and lose all track of the facts as stated!

Both dogs were on the lead.
They have no history of being 'vicious'.
They were called off almost as soon as the attack started.
It was dark.
The cat is presumed to have been on it's owner's property but we don't know this.
The pursuit may have been from the dogs owner's property onto the cat's owner's property. Hot pursuit? Cat trespassing? Cat 'not under owner's control'?
But the boundary is only delineated by a line on the ground -- no fence or wall.
There is no proof or evidence as to how the injuries were caused as the cat is only recovered later some time after the attack.
The owners of both dogs offered to pay the initial vet's fees, so liability to admitted. But are they both in the same position legally if one is the landowner and the other isn't?
But what about subsequent fees?

The original post reads like something concocted to test the knowledge of a law student, to me! I am highly suspcious!  A good troll, if it is one!


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

SusieT said:



			incorrect- you cannot for example hit a cat or be cruel to it because it is free roaming- it still counts as animal cruelty.
		
Click to expand...

This is taking it to the extreme and only to show a point once a cat leaves its owners property ,the cat is classed as feral if I wished too(which I dont) I could legally shoot it with no consequence. 
I will duck behind the wall now.


----------



## chillipup (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Cats are considered feral once off the owners property. To be honest they have no protection under law once this has occurred and any fate may fall upon them without consequence.

LOL

Click to expand...


----------



## LadyGascoyne (7 January 2016)

jmn04 said:



			My friend, out of good faith and feeling somewhat responsible, immediately offered to pay them for the initial vet bill of £600, which they have accepted.
		
Click to expand...

Your friend has already accepted responsibility for the cats injuries. Trying to establish whether there is genuine legal liability at this stage is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

I would suggest that your friend pay for 100% of the vets bills to avoid any further questions being asked about the aggression shown by their dogs. In the current climate, I would be very careful to avoid my dogs being interpreted as uncontrollable or aggressive.

I would also fence the boundary and train the dogs. "Dogs chase cats" is not acceptable, as others have said, dogs chase cats if you let them. The whole concept of a trained dog is that we ask them to control their instincts.

I hope the cat is ok, and that the dog owner isn't in for too much. It sounds like a nasty accident and it must have been horrible for your friend too. 

Also, just to note that some posters have confused "liable" with "libel". They are two completely separate legal concepts, the latter having nothing to do with "liability".


----------



## ester (8 January 2016)

There was no 'pursuit' Dryrot?

One point that has been missed is whether the dogs were on flexi or long leads . If not it really had to be impressively dark (considering so near at least 2 houses) or they really don't eat enough carrots. I don't think it being dark is a defence, if it is too dark you take a light .


----------



## Nettle123 (8 January 2016)

Poor cat. Of course the dog owner should pay for the Vet however ongoing the recovery. I would be mortified if this was my dogs. How long were their leads if they could inflict such bad injuries in a split second?, what type of dogs are they for goodness sake?


----------



## jmn04 (8 January 2016)

you didnt read the post properly, the cat owner is not elderley. waste of time replying!


----------



## Amymay (8 January 2016)

jmn04 said:



			you didnt read the post properly, the cat owner is not elderley. waste of time replying!
		
Click to expand...

I think the vast majority understand that the cat owner is not elderly.


----------



## LadyGascoyne (8 January 2016)

And the vast majority actually spent time considering your question and offered their genuine opinions and advice. 

Just because you don't appear to like the answer, it doesn't mean that your time has been wasted. In fact, if you weren't interested in our opinions, it's our time that could have been better spent.


----------



## Dry Rot (8 January 2016)

ester said:



			There was no 'pursuit' Dryrot?

One point that has been missed is whether the dogs were on flexi or long leads . If not it really had to be impressively dark (considering so near at least 2 houses) or they really don't eat enough carrots. I don't think it being dark is a defence, if it is too dark you take a light .
		
Click to expand...

I don't follow that.

The cat jumped into the dogs' mouths?

_Pursuit | Define Pursuit at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/pursuit
an effort to secure or attain; quest:_


----------



## ester (8 January 2016)

Well it read that the cat didn't move, otherwise if on suitable leads the dogs wouldn't have been able to bite it


----------



## luckyoldme (8 January 2016)

most of the posts on here are about legal responsability.
Personally I would be thinking about it from a moral point of view, and putting myself into the position of the cat owner.
I would however want to know about the cats detailed treatment costs and if possible to be able to speak to the vet just to make sure no one was pulling a fast one.


----------



## Dry Rot (8 January 2016)

Well, we've had the legal, and we've had the moral, how about the animal behaviour aspects? And, yes, a lunge at the end of a lead is indeed "pursuit"!

Here we have a cat that is street wise enough to be allowed to roam. It is sitting at the house door and can surely see/sense the approach of people with dogs, yet it remains there, finally to be caught by the dogs, both of which are on leads. Why would the dogs be on flexy leads when about to enter the house?

I'm guessing the cat was hit by a car and had made it's way home. After the attack on the doorstep (which it was apparently unable to avoid), the adrenalin would have kicked in allowing it to run away, presumably on three legs. Later, when the dogs had been put into the house, the cat is retrieved by the dog owners, again apparently without too much difficulty.

Did the vet certify that the damage had been done by a dog? Easy enough to look for puncture wounds. Were there any? Also, in my experience, a dog will attempt to catch a rabbit sized animal across the back or the neck.

So, as I am in Scotland, it is a 'not proven' verdict from me. It is perfectly natural for a dog to atack what it sees as an injured animal or bird and it is very tempting for even the best trained dog. The dogs or their owners cannot be blamed for that. The dog owners did a very decent thing in coughing up £600 for veterinary attention but as regards the second set of fees, I'm afraid I'd be saying "where is your proof?". You can buy an awful lot of cats for £1,200. Sorry if this sounds unsympathetic but I still think this is a troll. There are just too many 'ifs' and 'buts' in this case! But good try, OP.


----------



## popsdosh (8 January 2016)

Have to agree dry rot the injury as described would be very unusual from a dog attack ! more often than not puncture wounds neck and torso often fatal.


----------



## ester (8 January 2016)

I didn't say they were on flexi leads, but there is nothing to say that they weren't, regardless of how close to the house, I know lots of people that use them permanently in flexi mode?!


----------



## Luci07 (8 January 2016)

Interesting thread regardless. My dogs would undoubtedly chase a cat given the tiniest opportunity. Next doors cat will sit on the roof of my potting shed and just watch them going ballastic trying to get her. It means that in winter, I have to put leads on when taking them back into the house. My garden is properly fenced, my driveway is "open plan". 
Notwithstanding it is the right thing to do to pay the bill, I was very suprised that said cat didn't scarper as soon as th dogs came near. There are a lot of cats and dogs who live in my road and the cats never hang around when any of the dogs come near.


----------

