THE owner of a dog which attacked a woman has been acquitted after the Supreme Court decided there was no evidence that he had any knowledge of his dog’s tendencies in order to take preventive measures.
The man filed an appeal after a Nicosia district court found him guilty six years ago of civil negligence and ordered him to pay compensation.
The woman was attacked by the Collie-Akita on December 29, 1998, while walking along a street in Aglandja.
The dog was being looked after by the man’s mother, but at the time of the attack he was left to wander the streets without a muzzle, the court said at the time.
The man disputed the claim that the dog was dangerous and that it was being left to wander freely.
According to the owner, the dog had been confined in his mother’s yard, a fact not disputed by the other side.
He complained that the district court did not take into consideration the suggestion that the dog might have escaped and run out into the street.
The district court based its decision on two assertions: that the appellant knew of his dog’s aggressive tendencies but did not show the necessary care; and that he knew that his dog was not tame but did not take the necessary precautions to restrict it.
The Supreme Court suggested that the district court did not correctly assess the testimony, which it accepted as reliable, and was led to the wrong conclusions concerning vital aspects of the case.
The Appellate Court added that the testimony of a municipal official, apart from being hearsay, did not reveal, even indirectly, that the dog was indeed aggressive.
And the owner responded to the official’s instructions to confine the dog after the complaints had been received, the court said.
“The conclusions that the appellant knew that his dog was not tame before the incident and neglected in taking the necessary precautions are not supported by the municipal official’s testimony or any other testimony, “ the court said.
The incident could not have been foreseen since there was no prior indication that the dog was aggressive or had behaved in such a way that could create such a suspicion, the Supreme Court said.
The court upheld the appeal and set aside the initial district court decision.
