rental-property vehicle pets
My landlord&#39;s dog damaged my car. Who pays for the damages?
<p>Last night my landlord's dogs bit/scratched/dented my vehicle and it looks quite costly to repair.  This has been confirmed on camera.  My landlord has asked for the bill to be split 50/50.  His reasoning is that:</p>

<ol>
<li>He cannot control what the dogs do</li>
<li>The dogs provide security </li>
</ol>

<p>Legally speaking (I live in Fiji), should my landlord pay for the full repairs or should it be split?</p>

<p>In Fiji, <a href="http://www.paclii.org/fj/legis/consol_act_OK/da62/" rel="noreferrer">The Dogs Act 1971</a> section 9 states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The owner of every dog shall be liable in damages for any unprovoked
  injury done by his dog and it shall not be necessary for the party
  seeking damages to show a previous mischievous propensity in such dog
  or the owner's knowledge of such mischievous propensity or that the
  injury was attributed to neglect on the part of the owner of the dog.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This will depend on the jurisdiction. </p>

<p>In the <strong>United Kingdom</strong>, I think more information is needed. In <em>Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington</em>, Lord Atkin made it clear that </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[Failing to control dogs] is a liability which exist only in the case either of wild animal, which have by their nature a mischievous propensity, or of tame animals which are known to the persons having control to have a particular mischievous propensity.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In that case, the dog owner didn't know that his dog will behave harmfully to public and kept his dog inside a locked car. Later, that dog went mad and smashed the window, which caused injury to the pedestrians walked by. The court ruled that the owner need not to be liable to his dog's act as <em>he do not know his dog will commit such act</em>.</p>

<p>For the <strong>USA</strong>:</p>

<p>In McQuaker v Goddard, Scott LJ explained that, as a common law rule, wild animals are presumed to be dangerous to people, while domestic animals are not. Therefore, unless the owner of a domestic animal know that the animal could have propensity to hurt human being (or property), there is no liabilty upon the owner.</p>

<p>So, in order to claim from the owner, you need to show the court that he is aware of the potential danger and he negligently forget to protect the public safety. Hope it helps :)</p>
