Dog Bite Claim Solicitors

Dog Bite Compensation Claims – Should Insurance Be Compulsory?

Dogs are part and parcel of family life in the UK with several health and societal benefits[1].  However, dogs pose a considerable injury risk to humans – dog bites are now considered a health issue with various physical and psychological consequences for humans such as physical deformity, infections, mental trauma and even death.  This is costly to society both directly (cost of health care)[2] and indirectly (pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses to victim)[3].

This study aims to critically analyse whether the current regime for compensating victims of dog bite attacks is sufficient given the importance of dog ownership to family life in the UK, the long-lasting impact of dog bite attack on the victim, and the changing landscape of third-party insurance products available to dog owners - if I find the current regime is not sufficient for compensating victims of dog bite attacks, I will evaluate whether third party liability insurance for dog owners should be made compulsory by legislation.

Current legislation for dog bite attacks

There are numerous laws and regulations relating to dog ownership in the UK – the legal consequence of a dog biting or attacking another person is set out in the following legislations:

1.      The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

2.      The Animals Act 1971

3.      Dogs Act 1871

Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 grants local authorities with powers to order ‘dangerous’ dogs to be destroyed or kept under control - local authorities can also issue fines to owners of dangerous dogs.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was hurried through Parliament after a series of fatal dog attacks – this legislation comprises of two important parts:

1)     The first part makes it a criminal offence for dogs to be ‘dangerously out of control’ in a public place – an animal is considered ‘dangerously out of control’ if it causes injury to any person or animal, or if it causes a person to reasonably fear they could be attacked; and

2)     The second part makes it unlawful to own a certain breed of dog and also restricts the ownership of certain other breeds – if a dog is (or is suspected to be) from a banned breed, the dog could be confiscated and destroyed.

The Animal Act 1971 (owner’s liability for injury caused by a dog)

The common law principles of negligence already set out that a negligent owner of a dog can be sued for compensation if their dog injures someone – the 1971 Act extends this right to ensure that owners would be liable even if they weren’t necessarily negligent.

The dog keeper’s liability for damage done[4] by a dangerous dog is set out in s.2 of the 1971 Act[5]:

(1)   Where the dog belongs to a dangerous species, the keeper is liable

(2)   Where the dog does not belong to a dangerous species, the keeper is liable for any damage, if:

a.      The damage is the kind which the dog, unless restrained, was likely to cause;

b.      The likelihood of damage was due to the characteristics of the dog;

c.      These characteristics were known to the keeper at the time;

Current regime for compensating dog bite victims

When a dog bite attack victim establishes liability, (either by applying provisions of the Animals Act 1971 or common law negligence) the victim is entitled to compensation – under current legislation, common law, and compensation schemes, the following options are available to the victim:

1.      Claim against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (‘CICA’);

2.      Claim against the dog keeper;

3.      Claim against third party insurance (pet insurance or home insurance); 

Claims against the ‘Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority’

The CICA is a government funded body that makes payments to the victims of violent crimes – this includes someone who has suffered injury because of a dog bite.

The CICA scheme is set out in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (Amended) 2012 – the criteria for bringing a claim, the exclusions and awards for injury are prescribed as follows:

-        For any claim against the CICA to succeed, the victim must show the dog was used as a weapon – it will not be enough to show that the owner was negligent in letting the dog off the lead (even if the dog is from a restricted breed) – it must be that the dog was set on you deliberately.

-        Furthermore, before any award for compensation can be made, in addition to injuries the victim will need to establish that:

1.      Incident occurred in the UK

2.      The incident occurred within past two years (or two years of victim’s eighteenth birthday)

3.      The matter was reported to the Police promptly (usually within 72 hours)

4.      The victim has co-operated fully with the police investigation

-        Any award made under the CICA can be withheld or reduced if the victim has unspent convictions or convictions for an offence which results in custodial sentence, community order[6].

-        The monetary awards made under the scheme are low in comparison to the 16th Judicial College Guidelines, and the criterion for any award is strict – for example, an award for ‘significant disfigurement’ for upper limbs under the CICA scheme is £1,000[7] but the valuation bracket for same injury under Judicial College Guidelines is £2,370-£7,830 for a single noticeable scar, or £7,830 to £22,730 for a number of noticeable scars or a single disfiguring scar[8].  

-        The CICA scheme makes awards for injury, loss of earnings and other special expenses[9] - awards for treatment or corrective plastic surgery are not covered – this cost falls back to the NHS.[10] 

Therefore, this scheme is restrictive and does not award compensation to all victims of a dog bite attack – the scheme excludes anyone not meeting the eligibility criteria and the awards are low.  

Claim against the dog keeper

The law sets out that a ‘keeper’ of a dog is responsible for any damage or injury caused[11] - after a dog bite attack, seeking the identity of the dog’s keeper should be relatively straight forward exercise now that all dogs in the UK are required to be microchipped since 6th April 2016[12]. 

Bringing a claim directly against the dog keeper is much more straightforward than making a claim against the CICA – there is no pre-requisite that the dog bite victims is required to report the incident with Police by 72 hours, and the dog bite victim usually has 3 years to bring their claim from the date of the incident[13]. 

Furthermore, the dog bite victim can rely on Judicial College Guidelines to quantify their claim for general and special damages – this will allow the dog bite victim to seek all their losses subject to the losses satisfying the remoteness test[14].

However, difficulty will still arise where the keeper or the person responsible for the dog has not complied with the microchipping of their dog obligation or resists the same[15] – for a victim to bring a claim in tort, the name and address of the defendant is required to effect service of proceedings[16].

There is a prerequisite cost of bringing proceedings – the claimant will need to pay for medical legal report(s) to evidence their injuries and losses, court fees need to be paid to initiate a claim, the costs of solicitors and barristers to prepare proceedings and attend court on the claimant’s behalf – these are costs which the claimant will incur in bringing their case to court for determination. 

In instances where the victim of a dog bite attack identifies the dog keeper, compensation is still not guaranteed – a victim of a dog bite who suffers extensive injuries and losses may obtain a judgement against an uninsured dog owner but may not be able to enforce the judgement if the defendant has no assets which the claimant can take control of through enforcement proceedings – this will leave the claimant with a judgement that cannot be satisfied.

In instances where the keeper has no assets, solicitors may simply refuse to act for a claimant where the defendant does not have any means or assets to satisfy any judgement – these instances usually arise where the dog keeper is living in rented accommodation with no real assets to their name.  In such cases, the dog bite victim will not have any recourse to CICA claims unless the victim can show that the dog was used as a weapon and meets the other eligibility criteria.

Therefore, bringing a claim against the dog keeper directly is risky and carries extensive litigation risks – unless the dog bite victim is member of a trade union or has legal-expense-insurance in place, the costs of brining proceedings where payment of any judgement amount is not guaranteed may deter dog bite victims from seeking the compensation they may be entitled to under legislation or common law negligence.

Claim against third party insurance (pet insurance etc)

Most pet insurance plans include third party liability cover – the underwriter will indemnify the policyholder if the insured dog injures someone, and the keeper is found to be legally responsible[17].

Claiming against a pet insurer allows the victim of dog bite claim the best chance to recover compensation for any pain, suffering and loss of amenities as well as all financial losses including treatment costs – the dog bite victim can bring a claim against an insurer even when the keeper is not cooperative or in instances where the keeper deceases before proceedings can be brought.

However, as with all contracts, the liability of the insurer is limited to what was contractually agreed when the insurance product was purchased – some insurers have an upper limit for claims in their policy terms and conditions which limits what the insurer will pay out.

Further, as with any legal claim, insurers usually have their own panel of lawyers to defend claims on behalf of keepers of the dog responsible for any injuries caused – these lawyers are specialists in defending claims and will usually put the claimant to proof over liability, causation, and quantum.

Nonetheless, where the dog bite victim can properly evidence breach of duty, causation, and loss then the courts will award damages justly and proportionally in line with case law precedent and Judicial College Guidelines.

Summary of current dog bite compensation regime

Therefore, it is my view that the current regime for compensating dog bite victims is not fair, proportionate or just given the steady increase in dog ownership in the UK – if a dog injures someone, intentionally or recklessly, then the prospects of recovering compensation will depend on the victims’ luck as to whether the dog is microchipped, if the keeper is pecunios or whether there is insurance in place to indemnify the victim. 

Given the impact of dog bite claims to a victim both in terms of injury and financial loss, the victim’s fate should not depend on a lottery of who the dog keeper is and what keeper’s financial position is.

Furthermore, the social and economic cost of a dog bite attack is astronomical to the National Health Service, the “direct health care costs increased and peaked in the financial year 2017/2018 with admission costs at £25.1 million, and emergency attendance costs at £45.7million[18]” – in the same way the tax-payers should not be responsible for compensating victims of road traffic collisions[19], the tax-payers should not be responsible for compensating victims of dog bite attacks.

Proposed reform to third party cover for dog owners

Therefore, it is my view that urgent reform is required to the current compensation regime for victims of dog bite claims – third party liability cover for dogs should be made compulsory.

In 2010, the then Home Secretary for Labour, Mr Alan Johnson proposed that dog insurance which covers third party liability should be made compulsory[20] - this led to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (‘DEFRA’) and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to carry out a consultation on this matter.  Both departments concluded at the time, by making the purchase of third-party liability cover for dog owners will not achieve the then government’s objective to encourage responsible dog ownership.   Furthermore, the insurance market at the time was not offering stand-alone third-party liability cover for dog owners – this coverage was part of general pet insurance and home insurance.

There was public dislike for this proposal and consultation in 2010 for many reasons – the consensus was that all dog owners should not be punished for the irresponsible few dog owners who allowed their dogs to become dangerously out of control so as to injure somebody.  However, since 2010, the number of dog attacks, deaths caused by dog attacks and the cost to society relating to dog bite attacks has increased significantly – although public sentiment is important when considering policy decisions, the need to protect members of public or at least provide third party liability cover should outweigh public sentiment when deciding policy.

It is accepted that insurers may not have the appetite to offer standalone third party cover for dog owners as this may not make economic or business sense – however, in country where dog ownership stands in tens of millions, there will be sufficient opportunity for insurers to create a product which fills this gap with proper consultation with DEFRA and ABI once reform is made.

It will be my proposal that all owners should be made to purchase third party liability cover which meets the following minimum requirement:

-        Dogs of any breed will require compulsory third-party liability cover;

-        The minimum liability cover should be £2 million pounds;

-        The keeper details and insurance details for all dogs should be held in a central database controlled by DEFRA – relevant persons should be able to make keeper / insurance enquiries should any relevant claim arise;

-        Any keeper that fails to microchip their dog or obtain third-party liability cover should be sanctioned (i.e. fine, imprisonment, dog ownership ban for life etc)

This proposed reform will have far reaching benefits – these are summarised as follows:

-        Compulsory insurance will encourage responsible dog ownership as keepers will take more care in ensuring their dogs behave or are at least muzzled in public;

-        Victims of dog bite attacks will have recourse to compensation and will not rely on fate hoping that the keeper has relevant insurance or that the keeper is pecunious to satisfy any judgements;

However, as with any proposed amendments to existing law and regime, the downside of the said proposal must also be considered – if third party liability cover for dog owners was to be made compulsory then the following adverse consequences may arise:

-        Dog abandonment may increase especially in the current cost of living crisis as the cost of dog ownership will go up – this may lead to dogs being abandoned on the street, or even unlawfully killed meaning further burden to society and animal friendly organisations like the RSPCA[21];

-        Increased number of abandoned dogs may lead to further unprovoked dog bite attacks to innocent bystanders or members of the public – when dogs are abandoned, aggressive and scared they are most volatile[22].

-        Knowing that the keeper has third party liability cover may stimulate the keeper to use their dog as a weapon with the knowledge that the keeper’s personal liability is limited – however, if the underwriters become aware through fact find that the dog was intentionally used as a weapon in any dog bite attack claim, then the underwriter may void policy making the keeper personally responsible for any losses being claimed.

Notwithstanding this, it remains my considered opinion that third-party dog insurance ought to be made compulsory – it is my view the pros outweigh the cons.

[1] Westgarth, C. ‘Dog owners are more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than people without a dog: an investigation of the association between dog ownership and physical activity levels in a UK community’ Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10 (2019).

[2] Rollett, R., Clancy, R., Taib, B. G. & Mannion, C. RE: Not a plastic surgeon’s best friend: Dog bites an increasing burden on UK plastic surgery services. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 72, 685–710 (2019).

[3] Insurance Information Institute. Dog bite homeowners liability claims nationwide increased 18 percent; California, Florida and New York lead nation. in Number of Claims. https://www.iii.org/press-release/dog-bite-homeowners-liability-claims-nationwide-increased-18-percent-california-florida-and-new-york-lead-nation-in-number-of-claims-040517 (2019).

[4] s.6(3) and (4) of The Animals Act 1971

[5] s.2 of The Animals Act 1971

[6] The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (amended), Annex D, Pages 40-42

[7] The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (amended), Annex E, Page 55, Upper Limbs - Scarring

[8] 16th Edition – Judicial College Guidelines, Part 11 – Scarring to other parts of body

[9] The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (amended), Page 8 – Para 30

[10] Rollett, R., Clancy, R., Taib, B. G. & Mannion, C. RE: Not a plastic surgeon’s best friend: Dog bites an increasing burden on UK plastic surgery services. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 72, 685–710 (2019).

[11] s.2 of The Animal Act 1971

[12] s.3(1)(a) -(b) of The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015

[13] s.11(4)(a) of The Limitation Act 1980

[14] Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 388

[15] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dog-owners-should-ignore-the-new-microchipping-law-says-senior-vet-a6964671.html

[16] Rule 6.6(2) of Civil Procedure Rules – Part 6 ‘Service of Documents’

[17] What Pet Insurance Can Cover – Association of British Insurer - https://www.abi.org.uk/globalassets/sitecore/files/documents/publications/public/2015/pet/pet-insurance-consumer-guide.pdf

[18] Tulloch, J.S.P., Owczarczak-Garstecka, S.C., Fleming, K.M. et al. English hospital episode data analysis (1998–2018) reveal that the rise in dog bite hospital admissions is driven by adult cases. Sci Rep 11, 1767 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81527-7

[19] A Aerron-Thomas ‘The Role of Motor Insurance Industry in Preventing and Compensating Road Casualties’ - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d43e5274a27b2001739/R8012.pdf

[20] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-dogs/uk-owners-of-weapon-dogs-face-tough-curbs-idUSTRE6282P820100309

[21] https://www.rspca.org.uk/-/news-more-than-4600-animals-reported-dumped-to-rspca-last-winter

[22] http://www.vetstreet.com/care/aggression-in-dogs