The pit bull shook the assistant's head.

What was the compensation amount?

A kindergarten aide entered her employer's house and was attacked by her pit bull: "He pulled up and down while I was on the floor."

What did the defendant claim and how much did she pay?

David Rosenthal

07/28/2022

Thursday, July 28, 2022, 1:49 p.m

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on Twitter

• Share by email

• Share in general

• Comments

  Comments

01/31/2017, the time is 19:30.

in Harrit settlement.

A kindergartner's assistant in a nursery located inside a residence, arrives at her workplace to help her employer unload boxes of vegetables.

Nothing that could testify to the drama that would take place in a few moments: an adult Pitbull type dog belonging to the owner of the house jumped wildly at the assistant, grabbed her scalp with his terrible teeth and started shaking her head and neck violently from side to side.

The moments of horror lasted no less than 10 minutes, during which his owner tried to get him to let go, but without success - the pit bull only deepened his grip even more, like a crocodile trying to detach its head from the body of a capricorn caught in the river.

At the end of long minutes of helplessness, during which the assistant screamed to the depths of her soul, the dog released its grip on her head, revealing a horrifying sight: very deep bite wounds were created on her head and shoulder, several centimeters deep.

The assistant was rushed to the emergency room, and later it was diagnosed that due to the force of the shaking, she had a bulging disc in her neck.

In addition to the physical injury, the plaintiff, not surprisingly, began to suffer from nightmares and acute fear attacks, following which she began to consume psychiatric pills.

Definitely unpleasant, to say the least (Photo: ShutterStock)

Following the bite and its serious consequences, a tort claim was filed against the owner of the kindergarten.

In the statement of defense, the defendant stated that it is a friendly and non-violent dog, which stays all the time in a fenced and closed compound near her house and it is not possible to come into contact with it, including the children staying in the nursery.

According to her, the plaintiff, being an employee of the nursery, knew the place, the dog and the security arrangements very well, as only in the evening, when no one is in the house, the dog is released and stays inside the house.

She also stated in her defense that the plaintiff entered her house quickly and nervously, surprised the dog when she suddenly entered his restaurant, raised her head and therefore the dog grabbed her hair.

According to her version, at no point was the plaintiff bitten by the dog and the dog's reaction was following provocations, when she invaded his territory in a surprising and threatening manner.

In addition, the defendant claimed that after the accident, she immediately pushed the dog away and helped the plaintiff and even accompanied her "during the emergency room treatment".

In conclusion, she clarified that there is no legal or other obligation to keep a dog inside the house when it is tied on a leash or with a barrier by its mouth, since these instructions concern the dog's stay in the public domain.

According to her version, anyone who comes to a house where there is a dog, and this fact was known to the plaintiff, must assume that the dog is not bound and must find out the state of affairs before entering.

On the other hand, during the discussion of the case, the prosecutor took the witness stand and described the moments of terror: "He grabbed me like that with his teeth, with his head, he held me, if you read about this type of dog on Google, he does not open his mouth under any circumstances, only in the second Conditions - either you put cold water or you shoot him and kill him. He held me, what is the question? I answer that he shook me and continued to shake me, he pulled me down and up when I was on the floor. To the court's question, his body was not above me but Next to me and only his head was on mine."

"A shocking reminder of the responsibility of dog owners"

Adv. Assaf Varsha (Photo: Public Relations)

And what was the court's ruling?

In her decision, the judge wrote that the defendant should be held fully responsible for the occurrence of the accident.

According to him, "After examining the defendant's claims in the matter, the plaintiff's 'outburst' at her home, trespassing, and her claim that the plaintiff was teasing the dog, I did not really find them in them."

At the same time, according to her, since it was clarified that the plaintiff knew about the arrangements for keeping the dog, and knew at the time of her entry into the plaintiff's house that the dog was in the house, and that it was a large and dangerous dog.

Therefore, it decided that the plaintiff should be charged with contributory fault at the rate of 10%.

In the next step, the court is required to rule on the amount of compensation to be paid.

Documents were brought before the judge that testify to the poor mental state of the plaintiff who has suffered from nightmares at night since the incident, while she repeats the details of the accident time and time again and has difficulty in daily functioning.

"She is frightened by any trigger that reminds her of a dog, rarely leaves the house and suffers from neck pain, and a low mood," it was noted in her medical record.

In conclusion, the court decided that the owner of the kindergarten must compensate the assistant in the amount of NIS 185,000, plus court costs and attorney's fees.

A total of NIS 228,000 was awarded.

Adv. Assaf Varsha, co-chairman of the tort forum at the Bar Association, an expert in insurance law: "The verdict is a shocking reminder of the heavy responsibility placed on dog owners, especially since dogs are dangerous. Unlike other tort claims, when it comes to dogs, a point The conclusion is that the owner of the dog is responsible for compensating the injured party, whether he was negligent or not. The only option available to the owner to defend himself is to prove that the plaintiff provoked the dog or trespassed. In the aforementioned case, as well as in dozens of other cases, the defendant was unable to prove this, Which led to his being charged for compensation in an amount that amounted to a quarter of a million shekels. Bottom line - it is highly recommended for a dog owner to purchase insurance that covers his legal responsibility for damages caused to a third party. The only problem is that most companies do not provide insurance coverage for 'dangerous' dogs, as defined by the legislator." .

More in Walla!

The solution to knee pain is closer than ever - thanks to technology in the shoe

Submitted by Apostrophe

• Of money

Tags

• Pitbull