1. No category

13.04.2015
Judgement of the Supreme Court II Ips
267/2011, 20 February 2014: Damage
liability of a the holder of dog
The plaintiff was attacked by a German mastiff when
visiting her parents.
The plaintiff was actually the owner of the dog but it was
permanently kept at her parents, who also cared for it.
The plaintiff claimed compensation for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary loss from the insurance company with
which her parents had concluded insurance for real estate.
 The owner is only treated as the holder in a case in
which he himself performs supervision of a domestic
animal or if he entrusts it to a person who is not
objectively capable of undertaking this task, and the
owner knew of this circumstance.
 As a consequence, damage to the network of skin
nerves for the sense of touch and pain in the left part of
the occiput remained and she has permanent effects
such as an altered sense of touch and greater sensitivity
in the sense of increased pain.
 In revision proceedings, the Supreme Court dealt with
the question of whether the concept of a dog holder,
who is liable for damage caused by the dog to another
person, is wider than the concept of a dog owner.
 In the view of the Supreme Court, a dog holder is
anyone to whom a dog is entrusted or who has it in
custody, care or under control, even if he is not legally
its owner.
The case in question is also interesting
from the point of view of determining
compensation for non-pecuniary loss.
 The plaintiff suffered serious physical pain
 the plaintiff suffered further inconvenience, to which her
appearance was seriously altered, she was completely
incapacitated for work for three days and needed help
doing her hair
 she suffered moderate or light pain for about a week
with everyday activities and
 because of the clearly visible effects of the injury
(shaved scalp) she avoided appearing in public for
several weeks.
 The court of first instance awarded damages for non-pecuniary loss
because of physical pain of € 1,900 (1.95 average net monthly pay)
and € 1,300 (1.34 average net monthly pay) for non-pecuniary loss
because of fear, but rejected the claim for compensation because of
disfigurement and because of reduced life activities.
 The court of second instance and the Supreme Court increased the
damages for non-pecuniary loss because of physical pain to € 7,000
(7.2 average net monthly pay).
 It is necessary to asses all forms of loss that occurred and therefore
not only each individually in isolation. In the specific case, both
individual calculation and especially total assessment of the loss
required increasing the compensation to approximately seven
average net monthly pay in Slovenia.
1
13.04.2015
 The courts recognised compensation for disfigurement.
 In connection with compensation for disfigurement, the
Supreme Court stressed above all the mental suffering
that the plaintiff experienced because of the injury as a
seventeen year old girl.
 It based the assessment of compensation for
disfigurement at € 976 (1 average net monthly pay)
because of the visible permanent effects of injuries to
the face and above all the left occiput.
2