Landmark High Court of Fiji Judgement: Dog Owner Liable for Failing to Muzzle Dog

The High Court of Fiji has delivered a precedent setting judgment in the case of Sushila Wati v. Doctor Ami Chandra & Rita Kiran Chandra - High Court Civil Action No. 236 of 2023, likely marking the first time a dog owner in Fiji has been held liable for damages due to failing to muzzle their dog. This ruling reinforces the legal responsibilities of pet owners under the Dogs Act 1968 and establishes a critical precedent for public safety.

Case Background

On 9th August 2020, Chandrika Prasad was walking along Levuka Street in Suva when a dog, owned by the Defendants, suddenly exited their property and startled him. The incident caused Mr. Prasad to fall backwards and suffer severe head injuries, leading to his hospitalization. Despite being airlifted to Sydney for medical treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 18 October 2020.

The Plaintiff, Mr. Prasad’s wife, brought an action on behalf of his estate, arguing that the Defendants were negligent in failing to restrain and muzzle their dog, as required by law. The Plaintiff sought damages for medical and funeral expenses, as well as general damages.

Key Issues and Findings

The High Court examined several critical legal issues, including:

Did the dog attack or startle Mr. Prasad, causing his fall?

CCTV footage confirmed that the dog ran out of the Defendants’ property and lunged towards Mr. Prasad, causing him to step back and fall.

Was the dog known to be dangerous?

Witnesses testified that the Defendants' dogs had previously bitten others, indicating a known propensity for aggressive behaviour.

Did the Defendants breach their duty of care?

The Court found that the Defendants failed to properly restrain their dog, a clear violation of the Dogs Act 1968, which mandates that dangerous dogs must be muzzled when in public spaces.

Did the Defendants have prior knowledge of the dog's aggressive tendencies?

Testimonies from multiple witnesses established that the Defendants were aware of their dog's prior attacks on individuals, yet the Defendants had taken no corrective action.

Could the Defendants have reasonably foreseen the harm caused by their dog?

Given the dog's previous behaviour and the lack of preventive measures, the court concluded that the Defendants should have anticipated the potential danger posed by their pet.

Did the Plaintiff suffer financial and emotional distress as a result of the incident?

The court acknowledged that Mr. Prasad's prolonged hospitalization and eventual passing placed a significant financial and emotional burden on his family, further justifying the damages awarded.

Was the Plaintiff entitled to damages?

The High Court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff and awarded damages, including:

AUD $100,745 for medical evacuation and funeral costs.
A total of FJD $95,000 for general damages (under different heads) including cost.

Conclusion

The Judgment highlights the strict liability of dog owners for injuries caused by their pets, even if there was no direct physical contact between the dog and the victim.

The Judgment clarifies that Fiji’s legal framework still follows traditional common law principles regarding animal liability. The Judgment serves as a stern warning to pet owners about the necessity of restraining their animals and ensuring compliance with the Dogs Act 1968. Failure to do so can lead to severe legal and financial consequences.

The Plaintiff was represented by Tomasi Tuitoga, a Partner at Haniff Tuitoga.