The TS orders an insurer to compensate two women for a dog attack despite not having specific coverage

Establishes that the home insurance on the house in which the dog lived covers the damages caused by the animal

MADRID, 4 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court (TS) has ordered an insurance company to compensate two women with more than 13,000 euros for an attack by a dog in the street, despite the fact that the damage caused by the animal did not have specific insurance coverage home of the house where the dog lived.

In a judgment dated December 14, to which Europa Press has had access, the Civil Chamber agrees with the two women, correcting a previous ruling issued by the Provincial Court of Madrid that ruled out that the insurance company had to pay any compensation, the same decision adopted by the First Instance Court Number 18 of the capital.

The events occurred at 9:40 p.m. on July 2, 2015 when one of the plaintiffs was walking her daughter's two Yorkshire dogs through the municipality of Rivas Vaciamadrid. On the way, she was attacked by a Beauceron mixed breed dog that another woman was walking. She broke free and pounced on the first of hers, knocking her to the ground, before going after the two Yorkshires, killing one of hers.

The attacked woman filed a complaint with the Civil Guard and the one who was walking the Beauceron exposed that it really belonged to her daughter but that it was covered by home insurance -as long as it did not exceed 20 kilos in weight-, stressing that the animal was not of a dangerous breed and that it was properly vaccinated.

The attacked woman and her daughter took legal action against the insurance company to claim compensation of 26,384.19 euros for "aftermath, days prevented, expenses incurred and moral damages."

The insurer refused to take charge of the accident, alleging that its insured was a man who lived in the house where the owner of the Beauceron lived, who had contracted home insurance where formally he only appeared as an inhabitant and that he only contemplated a "liability extended to private life".

The Madrid Court dismissed the claim, considering that the two women had not proven that the damages caused by the Beauceron attack were covered by this home insurance.

The Supreme Court indicates that "in this case the rules of the burden of proof have been violated", determining that "the evidentiary uncertainty" actually weighs against the insurance company, which is the one who corresponds to prove this point.

In addition, it understands that the claim must be considered because article 1905 of the Civil Code (CC) "holds the owner of the animal or the person who uses it, responsible for the damages caused, even if it escapes or is lost". "It is a responsibility that derives from the damage that an animal can produce and its behavior constitutes the title of imputation of the damage", he deepens.

Thus, for the high court, the insurer must compensate because, "according to the normality of things, the animals live with their owners" and it has been proven that the owner lived in the insured house, understanding that the accident is covered by that " civil liability extended to private life" although there is no specific mention of the dog in it.

However, the magistrates lower the amount of compensation from 26,384 euros to 13,041 -10,821 for the mother, who walked the two Yorkshires, and 2,220 for the daughter and owner of the two dogs-- for the damage suffered.

The Supreme Court details that the deceased animal cost 1,200 euros, to which it adds 5% for non-material damage and 960 euros for veterinary and cremation expenses, which adds up to 2,220 euros.

It reduces the compensation due to contradictory reports on the physical damage suffered by the attacked woman, who -according to those provided by the plaintiffs- "continues with pain and discomfort at the cervical-dorsal level", has muscular contractures derived from the fall and pain with limitation of functionality at the level of the left wrist, as well as psychological sequelae because since the attack "he has experienced intense fear of going out into the street and of the dogs."