Stories from the veterinary press
Vet Juris thinks that there is going to be little incentive for the Commons to debate this issue in the current Parliamentary session, the government have more pressing issues of national importance. So, it is predicted that dog microchipping will be shuffled down to the bottom of the legislative bundle, maybe resurfacing in a later session of the coalition, but you are not advised to hold your breath.
The author's veterinary practice is, as far as I know, the only practice in the U.K. that insists on a 100% vaccination policy (correct me if I am wrong). I am currently looking into a marketing strategy that will ensure that all of my patients are also microchipped. The government's legislative programme should, ideally, represent the will of the electorate. Let us show the government that the veterinary profession has the will to see this Bill introduced.
VJ (C) 2012
Is this relating to the micro-chipping of dogs with a more 'aggressive' nature? I read an article on this briefly the other day after is was reported that another child was 'mauled' in a public place.
ReplyDeleteAs a mother of several children I whole heartedly support this though will people listen?? I was led to believe that these types of dogs should also be muzzled when in a public place but that seems to have been ignored too.
I am a dog lover but will admit that the sight of some dogs bounding towards me unmuzzled can be quite intimidating so I can only imagine how it feels from a child's eye..
Wow, thanks and congratulations on being the first responder to my blog. I guess Legally Blonde = Dee; hi.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of dangerous dogs is complex and unfortunately microchipping will have little effect. The Dangerous Dog’s Act 1991 banned the breeding and importation of specific breeds “types” namely the Japanese Tosa and the Pit Bull; so theoretically there should be no more of these breeds extant in the U.K. But there were two problems with the legislation. First, there was a lack of consultation on how to implement the legislation; quite simply the police didn’t know what to do. Initially police station kennels become log-jammed with dogs, most of which were friendly family dogs. Secondly, people with particular levels of testosterone and a penchant for aggression simply ignored the law, knowing it was extremely difficult for the police to control.
If a section of the public is going to ignore the breeding constraints, there is little hope of them adhering to the regulations regarding microchipping. The Act and the Bill are both dependent on a responsible pet ownership.
The major problem with the 1991 Act however, is that it refers to a breed type s.1(1)(a)&(b) and not to the breeds per se. Therefore, if one was to cross a boxer and a Staffordshire bull terrier, the resulting prodigy would probably contain “Pit Bull Types” and be classified as dangerous. Hence, it is impossible to eradicate a type only a specific breed.
On the issue of dogs running at you; I can totally sympathise. However, this is not a breed or type problem. You would probably be surprised to know that the number one spot for dogs that put people in A&E is…the Labrador.
What Vet Juris feels, is that compulsory third party insurance would be of greater benefit to curbing the nuisance of irresponsible owners, especially if higher premiums were imposed on reckless owners and good owners benefited from a no claims bonus. Also, dogs that posed a greater risk would incur higher fees.
VJ © 2012
Ok Thank you though I must admit your comment about Labrador's surprised me..
ReplyDeleteHi, about a year and a half ago (September 2010) my husband was walking our dog (Bonnie, a lovely, gentle yellow Labrador now aged 8) in a public area in the County Hall grounds which was accessible from the road and open to the public with no restrictions. I wasn't there so it's not easy to explain, but they came to an area which was totally accessible on the walking route which had a knee height wall around it, my dog jumped over the wall expecting to get to the other side to carry on walking but the wall was the edge of a roof. It was a 15 foot drop to the ground Bonnie fell and snapped the ligaments/tendons in her leg and knocked her front teeth out.
ReplyDeleteAfter being rushed to the vet, she was referred to a specialist surgeon where she eventually underwent surgery to have a metal rod fitted in her leg. We had a very good insurance policy which paid for all the treatment (which came to around 4.5K) and they reimbursed most of our fuel costs.
But from the time of the accident until she was properly back on her feet it was around 8 months. She was in so much pain she was groaning and usually you would never know anything was wrong with her she is so quiet and quite a hardy dog. She also suffers from allergies which give her itchy skin so is constantly on steroids, she couldn't take the steroids with the other medication she was on and the head collar she had to wear (to stop her ripping the bandage off her leg) gave her the most horrendous skin infection. She got a sore on her leg too which became infected and all the infections delayed her operation as the surgeon wouldn't operate if there were any scabs. She had to be confined to a crate, which we had to buy) to stop her walking so much on her leg which was very distressing for her as she is a very social dog who lives in the house as part of the family.
After the operation (which finally took place in February 2011) she was also confined to the crate for a few months to let the leg totally heal.
County Hall at first refused to admit they were at fault at all so we called the Health and Safety Executive, they went out to look at the area and ordered it cordoned off straight away and said they were amazed no one had been killed in a fall. County Hall then cordoned off the area to the public.
So even though the insurance paid for her treatment and most of the fuel costs, we still had to buy a crate which cost £100, but also can we sue County Hall for the distress to Bonnie and to us that the accident caused and is it too late?
Thanks for your advice.
Hi, Anon or Annianon,
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that you are considering an action for the tort of negligence. The case law of Donoghue [1932], and clarified in Caparo [1990] requires that: the respondent (The Council) had foreseeability of the accident; proximity of relationship with the claimant (you); and it be just to impose the duty. On the face of it, all of the criteria would seem to be forefilled.
Having established that there was a duty of care and that that duty had been breached, you would need to show loss; physical loss or loss of money.
Bonnie I would suggest will not be able to claim losses. In law there is very little difference between a dog and a washing machine. In cruelty cases the animal never gets compensated.
Hurt feelings would not be considered a loss unless they amounted to a psychiatric injury as stated in the House of Lords in Malik v BCCI [1997] IRLR 462. Your out of pocket losses would be recoverable in this instance.
The time limits for a claim of tort are given in the Limitations Act 1980 s. 2, as six years; so you are well in time.
I hope this helps.
VJ © 2112
Thank you for your reply.
ReplyDeleteSuch a shame that Bonnie can't be compensated for her suffering and although it was distressing for us our distress didn't really amount to psychiatric injury!
I will find the receipts for the crate and the muzzle we had to buy and I will claim the money back from them.
Thanks for your help.