Lawyers for a Canberra dog attack victim said two ACT government authorities acted negligently by not removing two vicious animals from a public housing complex.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
However, lawyers for the government argued it had not breached a duty of care.
John Purnell, SC, told the ACT Supreme Court this week that residents of the Belconnen public housing complex had been too scared to leave their units for fear of the two pitbull terriers.
Daniel Meyers suffered horrific injuries when he was mauled by the two dogs at the Spence complex in March, 2016.
Mr Meyers lost a finger, part of his hand and tricep, and suffered nerve damage after the dogs attacked as he returned home.
Mr Meyers launched civil action alleging the ACT government had failed to prevent the attack despite receiving warnings from residents over three months.
He alleged the government acted negligently and owed residents a duty of care.
The lawsuit alleges Housing ACT and Domestic Animal Services had failed to ensure the complex was kept safe by removing the dogs, and says the risk of serious harm and injury was foreseeable.
During a seven-day trial, Justice David Mossop heard the dogs had been owned by two people staying with a tenant in the complex.
It was suspected the animals had acted as guard dogs to a drug house, Mr Purnell said.
Housing ACT received a complaint about the dogs in December 2015 and the tenant had been told the animals presence had been a breach of the lease.
The animals then attacked a visitor to the complex in January, but the man managed to escape unharmed.
He complained to the then Minister Simon Corbell.
An animal warning harassment notice was also issued, but DAS told the man it could not remove the dogs and referred him to Housing ACT.
Housing ACT then referred him back to DAS.
Mr Purnell told the court that DAS had been negligent when it provided incorrect advice to Housing ACT about powers to seize or remove dogs.
He said that after the attack that it had been "abundantly clear that safety for the tenants of the complex and visitors to the complex was a burning issue that must be addressed by the territory".
"They did attack again. It was foreseeable."
The silk also argued that Housing ACT had failed as it did not evict the tenant before the attack on Mr Meyers.
In response, lawyers for the ACT government said authorities had not permitted the dogs to stay at the complex and "active steps were being taken".
She said steps to evict the tenants had begun, but it was a lengthy process and no course of action would have seen the dogs removed before the March attack.
She also said the evidence indicated the dogs had been absent for long periods and not always present at the property, making the process more difficult.
Justice Mossop reserved his decision.
