Australia, Aug. 16 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 15:

1. The plaintiff brings a claim for damages pursuant to s 25 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) (CAA) arising out of events which occurred on 24 April 2020.

2. On that day, the plaintiff was walking her dog Lexi, an 11-year-old shih tzu, along a suburban street in Mortdale. Lexi was on a retractable lead at the time.

3. It is not controversial that the defendant's dog, a large greyhound staffordshire bull terrier cross ran down the street unrestrained and viciously attacked the plaintiff's dog. The plaintiff described graphically how the defendant's dog grabbed Lexi and was throwing her from side to side as the plaintiff tried desperately to pick her up. When she finally was able to get Lexi, the defendant's dog continued to attack. In the plaintiff's words:

"... he kept running back and launching at me and he just kept attacking, and he just didn't stop. He didn't stop, and I was falling over and trying to get on my feet".

4. The plaintiff described how whilst she was holding Lexi the defendant's dog ripped Lexi's whole paw off at the joint. She recounted how the dog bit the plaintiff across the neck, her face around the chin, her arm and her legs. The plaintiff described fingernails being completely ripped off in the chaos of the attack as she was falling over and tripping on the lead, all the time trying not to let go of Lexi.

5. Photographs taken immediately following the attack show that Lexi's front left leg was completely severed at around the elbow joint and the plaintiff had various lacerations and abrasions, including to her neck, chin and hands.

6. By any measure, this was a violent and terrifying attack.

7. Fortunately, there was a vet nearby and following emergency treatment, which included amputation of the leg at the shoulder, Lexi survived.

8. The defendant admits she was the owner of the dog in question. She admits that her dog attacked the plaintiff's dog. She does not admit her dog attacked the plaintiff but admits the plaintiff was wounded in the course of the attack upon Lexi. That distinction did not figure as a real issue in the running of the case. In any event, I am comfortably satisfied that as well as being wounded, the plaintiff was attacked by the defendant's dog.

9. There is no dispute that s 25 of the CAA is engaged, making the defendant, to use the words of the section, "liable in damages in respect of bodily injury" to the plaintiff caused by the defendant's dog wounding or attacking her.

10. The contest really centres around the nature and extent of the damages recoverable by the plaintiff. In short, the defendant argues that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in respect of physical injury sustained during the attack as well as any psychiatric injury suffered as a result of the attack on her and/or the physical injuries she suffered. The defendant says, however, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of what happened to Lexi. Beyond that, the defendant disputes the quantum of the plaintiff's claim.

11. The plaintiff contends that she is entitled to damages for all of the physical and psychiatric trauma suffered as a result of the attack, including trauma associated with the attack on Lexi.

12. While the issues in the case are reasonably confined, as will be seen, they are not without some factual and legal complexity.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1980b23b9ad2e61f434cf015)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.