‘My neighbour's dog savaged my cat, now he won't pay the £3,000 vet bill'
Hello Gary,
I'm asking this question on behalf of my sister.
My sister and family live on a pleasant, quiet estate. A few weeks ago, one of her cats was sleeping peacefully in the front garden, when a man who lives elsewhere on the estate walked by with his Rhodesian Ridgeback dog on a lead. The dog saw the cat, broke free from the man and attacked the cat. This was caught on my sister's front door cam.
The man managed to get his dog off the cat and rang the bell to apologise. He then walked off. Long and short, the cat suffered life-threatening injuries. It is now on the mend but will have a lifelong injury to one leg.
The overall vet bill is about £3,000 and while my sister has the cat insured, it will not cover this amount. The thing that has angered my sister, and indeed other neighbours who know the man, is that he's offered no financial support.
My brother-in-law has twice been round to his house to discuss the issue, but the man is not interested. He simply told my brother-in-law that his dog insurance does not cover injury caused to cats. He's clearly not going to do the right thing.
Does my sister have any legal recourse to force the man to contribute towards the vet fees? These are fees that were incurred by his dog being out of control and causing great harm to a much-loved family member.
All the best,
John by email
Dear John,
I am very sorry about this terrible incident. As you say great harm has been done in what must be distressing circumstances for your sister and her family. My view as a lawyer is that the owner of the dog has legal responsibility for what has happened and arising from that responsibility can be forced to account for his actions.
In legal terms pets, including dogs, are chattels, which means they are an item of property like a car or a piece of furniture capable of being owned by an individual. Hence, ownership of a dog is sometimes in dispute in situations like a divorce.
In this case, while it is the action of the dog which caused the injury, the responsibility is with the dog owner. It is the Animals Act 1971 which addresses liability for animal-related incidents and makes clear a 'keeper' of an animal, by definition a dog owner, is liable for the actions of a dog.
So, as a matter of preliminary evidence you should first establish the owner in this case is the owner of the miscreant dog. I would say the fact he has pet insurance for his dog pins him down on ownership.
Under the Animals Act, keepers of animals can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog in certain circumstances. Even if the dog has not shown previous aggression or the owner did not intend harm. In this case the relevant facts and basis of the claim are:
The dog caused injury to your sister's cat
The dog was not under control, as it broke free from the lead and –
The attack was reasonably foreseeable given the involvement of larger, powerful breeds like Rhodesian Ridgebacks, which are known for sometimes aggressive behaviour to smaller animals.
I emphasise here that dogs behave instinctively, and it is the owners who should know that and manage their behaviour.
In this case, the fact this occurred in a front garden where the cat had a right to be, and the dog was out of control strengthens your sister's potential claim.
As well as liability under statute as per the Animals Act, your sister could bring a claim for negligence on the basis the dog owner failed to maintain control of the dog and/or damage to property as her cat is also her chattel so the dog has caused damage to her personal property.
All of which means there is a legal basis for a monetary claim against the dog owner. The next issue is to value the claim. This will mean calculating all of the financial loss which has occurred, which in the main will be the vet's bill of £3,000. These losses should be set out with supporting evidence.
An initial 'letter of claim' setting out the legal basis of the dog owner's liability (as above) and the financial losses claimed should be sent to the dog owner and he should be given a deadline to reply and pay up.
Tell him if he does not pay by the deadline you will issue a claim under the 'small claims track' which can be done online in England and Wales for all monetary claims of a value up to £10,000. Here's the link.
If your sister recovers her losses from the dog owner, she will of course have to repay any relevant part of her own insurance claim.
Ask a Lawyer should not be taken as formal legal advice, but rather as a starting point for readers to undertake their own further research
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
‘Childhood verbal abuse can have similar mental health impact as physical abuse'
Verbal abuse of children could be as damaging to their mental health in adulthood as physical abuse, according to researchers. A study of more than 20,000 adults in England and Wales found that people exposed to verbal abuse in childhood were likely to feel disconnected, pessimistic, and emotionally unwell in later life. Adults who were physically abused as children had a 52% higher chance of experiencing low mental wellbeing, and this stood at around 64% for those who had been subjected to solely verbal abuse. While verbal abuse did show as having a marginally higher impact in this study, the researchers said the difference was not statistically significant and that further studies would be needed perhaps with a larger sample size to confirm the validity of the difference. Being exposed to both types of abuse compounded the risk even further, at 115% higher, the study led by Liverpool John Moores University found. Lead author, Professor Mark Bellis, who is director of research and innovation at the university, said: 'Our research shows that verbal abuse in childhood may inflict mental health scars as deep and enduring as those caused by physical abuse. Important progress has been made in reducing physical abuse, but verbal abuse is often overlooked.' The study, published in the BMJ Open, also suggested the prevalence of verbal abuse has risen in recent decades 'eroding the long-term mental health benefits we should see from reducing physical abuse'. The authors worked alongside Bangor University and Public Health Wales to pool data from seven relevant studies, involving 20,687 adults from England and Wales and looking at birth cohorts from the 1950s onwards. They found that the prevalence of child physical abuse halved from around 20% among those born between 1950 and 1979 to 10% among those born in 2000 or later. But when it came to verbal abuse, the prevalence rose from 12% among those born before 1950 to around 20% among those born in 2000 or later. The researchers said an estimated one in six children endure physical abuse, primarily from family members and caregivers, but one in three are subjected to verbal abuse. Jessica Bondy, founder of Words Matter, an organisation focused on ending childhood verbal abuse by adults said: 'This study confirms what survivors and professionals have long known: words can wound deeply and have a lasting impact on a child's mental health and development. We all get overloaded sometimes, but too many adults are turning to harsh words without realising the lasting damage they cause to children. 'Any gains made in reducing physical abuse risk being undone by rising rates of verbal abuse. We must act now to confront the lasting harm caused by cruel, critical or controlling language. We need to build children up – not knock them down. The mental health of the next generation and our shared future depend on it.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
How Jackson, MS, says it spent the Siemens settlement as federal judge investigation looms
A public records request submitted by the Clarion Ledger shows how the City of Jackson spent the majority of the money it received in a nearly $90 million legal settlement with Siemens, a multinational engineering company the city hired to revamp its water billing system. The contract, signed in 2013, was meant to overhaul the city's water billing system, but instead left thousands of residents with faulty meters, inaccurate bills and years of financial fallout. After legal fees and other deductions, Jackson received $59,829,531 from the settlement, according to public records. Roughly $30 million went to the law firms that represented the city — Lightfoot, Franklin & White of Birmingham, Alabama; Winston J. Thompson III PLLC of Jackson, Mississippi; and Ice Miller LLP of Indianapolis, Indiana — under a contingency-fee arrangement. The figure matches what interim City Attorney Drew Martin told U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate during a court hearing on July 14. The Clarion Ledger reached out multiple times on Monday, Aug. 4, to Mayor John Horhn's administration — including to interim Communications Director Nic Lott, interim Chief Financial Officer Fidelis Malembeka and Martin — by phone and email. None responded to questions about the public records, the federal investigation or whether this document is what the city intends to submit to Judge Wingate — or if it already has. Breakdown of Siemens settlement funds received by the City of Jackson $14,716,028 – Deposited into the water/sewer reserve fund, as required by bond covenant. $12,614,799 – Repaid to the city's General Fund. $18,540,107 – Placed in escrow at Trustmark Bank to cover: 1/12 principal payments 1/6 interest payments Debt service payments through December 2020 $3,500,000 – Used for emergency sewer repairs. $1,508,417 – Covered sanitation cash deficit due to billing system failures. $8,950,180 – Remaining balance for water system repairs or new billing system implementation. The public records request also notes that on Nov. 18, 2020, the Jackson City Council approved a contract with Mythics LLC — a company brought on to provide software, support, and maintenance services for the city's struggling water billing system — for $8,656,196.65. It states that $1,657,282.23 was paid to the company out of a $7 million emergency loan fund, and that $6,998,914.42 is being paid under the Sustainability Partners contract. Sustainability Partners, an Arizona-based firm, was initially hired by the city to replace broken water meters. It is unclear why any of this information was included in the Siemens settlement breakdown, and the city did not respond to multiple requests for clarification. The Clarion Ledger also requested to see budgets, memos, reports or other documents tracking how the Siemens funds were spent, but the city only provided a list of expenditures and did not include any supporting records. Court testimony largely matches public records, but gaps remain During the July 14 court hearing, Martin told Wingate the city had $59.8 million from the settlement as of April 30, 2020, and spent roughly $50 million between July and September of that year. He told Wingate that $36–37 million went toward bond debts and bringing the city into compliance with water and sewer bond covenants, with millions more covering deficits in the water and sewer departments. Martin's statements and figures generally align with the breakdown included in the public records request, though the records offer a more detailed account of how the money was distributed. However, Martin could not answer how the funds were deposited or who handled the transactions — two questions Wingate specifically raised. He said the city's finance department was still working to compile the relevant records. Iconic Jackson resident: Moments captured at Brent's Drugs in Fondren Mayor Horhn says city is nearly done gathering records Speaking after the Jackson City Council's July 29 meeting, Mayor John Horhn told the Clarion Ledger the city is still in the process of gathering all necessary documents to respond to Wingate's broad subpoena order. Horhn was not in the mayor's office during the Siemens lawsuit; it was handled under former Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba, who was notably not included in Wingate's list of subpoena recipients. 'We're still gathering all the documents, and it's a pretty large volume,' Horhn said. 'We should be close to submitting everything to Judge Wingate soon. From what we've seen, most of the $60 million the city received went toward debt service and other water system expenses. Some software — a product from an Oracle subsidiary — was also delivered to the city.' Horhn also questioned why the city paid out $30 million in legal fees, noting that the law firms involved never argued the case in court. Federal funding to MS private schools? MS can opt-in to new private school voucher program. What do experts say on the topic? Law firm challenges subpoena as city claims no records on legal fees One of those firms, Lightfoot, Franklin & White of Birmingham, Alabama, has challenged the subpoena. In a motion filed July 28, the firm argued it wasn't properly served, asks legal materials that violates attorney-client privilege and makes unreasonable demands given the firm's location. On July 12, the Clarion Ledger filed another public records request asking the City of Jackson to provide documentation showing how much was paid to each law firm or attorney involved in the 2020 Siemens settlement. All collectively received roughly $30 million — about one-third of the settlement — but how that money was divided among them remains unclear. In an Aug. 1 response letter, the city said it had no documents responsive to the request. 'This could be due [to the fact that] the prospective law firms deducted their fees prior to sending the City of Jackson its portion of the Siemens settlement,' the letter stated. Federal judge wants answers before approving water rate hikes Wingate is the federal judge currently overseeing Jackson's water system rehabilitation, which remains under federal control following the city's water crisis in 2022. He appointed engineer Ted Henifin as interim third-party manager in late 2022, a role that led to the creation of JXN Water, the independent entity now managing the system. In July, Wingate issued 18 subpoenas to city officials, JXN Water, Siemens, former Jackson public works directors and several law firms involved in the case. The subpoenas demand a full accounting of how the Siemens funds were allocated, including bank statements, disbursement logs, wire transfer records and other documents. In court, Wingate has expressed frustration with the city's lack of documentation. So far, no official has been able to provide a complete financial paper trail. Wingate has since paused a proposed rate increase for JXN Water customers, saying it would be unfair to raise residents' bills until the court knows whether all available resources — including Siemens settlement dollars — were exhausted. A $90 million contract that unraveled The original contract with Siemens dates back to 2013, when Jackson hired the multinational firm to install digital meters, modernize its billing platform and improve collections. The deal was worth $90 million and touted as a major step forward for the city's aging infrastructure. But the project quickly unraveled. Meters were installed improperly, some residents didn't get bills at all, and the city's revenue plummeted. Jackson sued Siemens and several subcontractors in 2019, accusing them of delivering a system that never worked. Siemens denied wrongdoing but agreed to the $90 million settlement in 2020. At the time, city leaders said the funds would help repair the damage and stabilize Jackson's water system. Charlie Drape is the Jackson beat reporter. You can contact him at cdrape@ This article originally appeared on Mississippi Clarion Ledger: Records reveal how Jackson, MS, spent Siemens settlement money Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Oasis says they're ‘shocked and saddened' after fan falls to his death at Wembley show
A man fell to his death at the Oasis concert on Saturday at Wembley Stadium, British Metropolitan Police have confirmed. In a statement given to the BBC, officials said they responded to a report that a man in his 40s had been injured at the show around 10:19 p.m. BST. After discovering 'injuries consistent with a fall,' the man was pronounced dead at the scene. 'The stadium was busy, and we believe it is likely a number of people witnessed the incident, or may knowingly or unknowingly have caught it on mobile phone video footage,' officials said. They then called for any information regarding the incident to be reported. It is believed the man fell from the stadium's upper tier. No additional details were added concerning the cause of the fall, though some attendees who witnessed the incident suggested that the man may have slipped. 'So much beer was being thrown throughout the whole concert,' one woman told the Guardian. 'I was surprised they allowed people to bring drinks into the stands. It made the floor really slippy.' Another fan, John, says he saw many fans leaning against the balcony from block 511, where witnesses claim the fall took place. 'There were loads of people who just kept going down to the front and leaning right over. One guy was stopped, but after that, no security came down,' he said. 'There's a rail and a small guard, but it did make me think someone could quite easily get knocked off there.' He was also critical of alcohol consumption at the show, adding that he 'constantly saw people with cardboard cup holders full of pints.' The Times reported on Friday that Oasis fans had drank 250,000 pints of beer during one show at Wembley, breaking a stadium record. Last year's Coldplay gigs saw 120,000 pints sold, and 40,000 for Taylor Swift. Representatives of Wembley Stadium told the BBC that paramedics attempted to revive the man on the scene, but to no avail. 'Despite their efforts, the fan very sadly died.' they said. Oasis addressed the tragedy, telling NME they were 'shocked and saddened' to hear the news. 'Oasis would like to extend our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the person involved,' they added. The concert was the fourth show in Oasis' quartet of sold-out appearances at Wembley; they'll close out the historical run on Monday. The North American leg of their tour will kick off on Aug. 24 in Toronto and make its way to Los Angeles for two nights at the Rose Bowl on Sept. 6 and 7. The Gallagher brothers shocked the world when they reunited after 15 years, following a widely publicized and bitter fallout in 2009. The reunion rollout began with a teaser video posted on Aug. 25, 2024, on the band's Instagram account. It contained a date and time: '08.27.24, 8 a.m.' It would end up being the official announcement of their 2025 tour. 'This is it,' the band wrote. 'This is happening.'
