Two Canberra dog owners were ordered to pay out more than $13,000 to a former neighbour after their dog attacked and injured the neighbour's dog.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
In a decision handed down last week in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the two owners were found to have been negligent and ordered to pay vet costs.
The attack occurred in September last year when Ranger, an Alaskan malamute, a large breed which can exceed 40 kilograms, escaped to the neighbour's yard and attacked Orea, a shih tzu.
Orea's owner, who had left the dog in the care of a house sitter while overseas, sought damages in the tribunal against the two dog owners, who rented the neighbouring property, an Alaskan malamute re-homing organisation and the property owner.
Orea's owner claimed the attack had cost her more than $14,000 in vet fees.
The house sitter had to physically remove Orea from Ranger's mouth during the attack and then took the small dog to the vet, the judgment said.
Another malamute, Babe, which was owned by one of the neighbours also escaped into the yard but had not acted aggressively.
Orea's owner said Babe had escaped into her yard through a broken fence on several previous occasions but had never behaved aggressively.
Ranger's owner had been in the process of adopting Ranger from the Alaskan Malamute Re-Homing Aid Australia Inc and at the time of the attack she was listed as the registered owner.
While Ranger was technically owned by only one of the respondents, both were legally considered a carer of the dog and therefore both were found to be liable for the injuries caused by the attack.
Orea's owner contended the malamute re-homing organisation had acted negligently by not observing Ranger interact with smaller dogs and only with dogs of similar size.
She claimed when Ranger was returned to the organisation after the attack he was advertised as "a gorgeous cuddly boy" and without mention of the attack.
The tribunal found that the organisation had behaved irresponsibly by not taking steps to further understand where and how Ranger would be kept, as malamutes are considered "escape artists".
However they were found not to be liable as all liability passed to the respondent when she took legal ownership of the dog.
The owner of the property where the malamutes lived was found not to be at fault as she was not reasonably able to be aware of the state of the fence.
Conversely Orea's owner was found liable and had her payment lowered by 10 per cent as she knew about the issues with the fence and did not take adequate actions to fix it.
Ranger's owner was ordered to pay $7605 while Babe's owner was ordered to pay $6099 to cover the vet costs.
