Reckless treatment of animals - the path to criminal liability 

Who is responsible when a dog bites a person? Is it enough to say "it ran away by itself"? Or is it the actual possession of the animal that is more important in court than ownership? According to Domantas Velykis, a lawyer at AVOCAD, careless behaviour or a lack of security can lead to criminal liability.

In Lithuania, the rules for keeping animals are strictly regulated by the Law on Animal Welfare and Protection of the Republic of Lithuania, which sets out how state and municipal authorities, as well as animal keepers themselves, have to ensure the well-being of pets and the safety of people. The law establishes general rights and obligations for animal owners - for example, that animals must not pose a threat to the life, health or property of humans or other animals. On the basis of this law and the functions entrusted to the State Food and Veterinary Office, a description of the procedure for keeping animals in residential areas has been drawn up. On the basis of this, the mayors of the municipalities approve specific rules on the keeping of animals in their municipal territory. "A person who violates these rules and causes injury to another person as a result of an animal may be criminally liable for bodily harm. In such cases, it is usually negligence - criminal negligence in failing to take the necessary safety precautions - that is at issue," says the lawyer.

As with other crimes of bodily injury, according to AVOCAD lawyer Domantas Velykis, the offence is qualified according to the extent and consequences of the injuries. Most of these cases fall under the category of negligent infliction of minor bodily harm, and the following is a discussion of the elements of this crime and the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania (SCL).

The lawyer points out that the qualification of the offence does not depend on whether the person is the owner of the dog, but only on whether he is the actual keeper of the dog. What is relevant is the fact of the injury itself, which is caused by the negligent behaviour of improper keeping of the animal. Therefore, for criminal liability, it is sufficient to prove the actual ownership or possession of the dog. Anyone who negligently injures or maims a person, provided that the injury or maiming results in partial incapacity for work or a prolonged illness, but does not have serious consequences, is liable to criminal prosecution. The offence in question is committed only with negligence.

Under the Criminal Code, criminal negligence means that a person:

• did not foresee that his actions or omissions could lead to harmful consequences, such as that the person does not realise that he is violating generally accepted rules of care or special requirements for carrying out work and therefore does not foresee that his actions (acts or omissions) could lead to dangerous consequences, in this case, injury to a person;

• could and should have foreseen the consequences of the act, given the circumstances of the act and the personal characteristics of the person concerned - the ability to foresee the consequences is a subjective criterion of criminal negligence, which determines the ability of a person with a relevant duty to foresee the dangerous consequences of his or her actions in a particular situation. The ability to foresee the consequences is an objective criterion of criminal negligence, which establishes the existence of a duty of care when committing the act in question.

"In other words, the ability and capacity to foresee the consequences characterises a person's duty of care to foresee potentially dangerous consequences," says the lawyer.

In a landmark Supreme Court case, a dog owner failed to ensure that two Rottweiler mixes she kept would not pose a threat to others, in breach of legal requirements. Knowing that a child was nearby, she opened the aviary and let the dogs out in the yard. One of the dogs attacked the minor, causing minor injuries. Although the keeper argued that she could not have foreseen this behaviour, the Court notes that she should and could have foreseen it, knowing that the child, a stranger to the dogs, would be attacked and injured by the dogs, which were defending their territory from unauthorised persons, when she opened the car door to enter the yard. Therefore, the keeper should have taken additional precautions (e.g. locking the car door or creating a barrier to access to the yard).

"In another case, the defendant was acquitted because the dog was locked in a room and only escaped when the guest opened the door - in this case, the owner had taken reasonable security measures," Domantas Velykis says, summarising the case law. In another case, a dog owner was convicted for a dog that broke loose from a chain that was too loose and ran into a public road, biting a woman and her pet. The Supreme Court stressed that it is not enough to tether a dog if the strength of the chain or collar is not ensured.

Thus, according to AVOCAD's lawyer, an animal keeper has a duty not only to take care of the welfare of his or her pet, but also to ensure that the pet does not cause danger or harm to third parties. Negligent behaviour or failure to ensure safety can lead to criminal liability under the Criminal Code.