27 Apr failure to keep animals

The law recognizes a general duty of diligence and prudence on anyone who keeps an animal and gives this person a position of guarantee in the event of harmful events. He comes, therefore, the owner of the animal is recognized as having a duty of care, which consists of the need to maintain constant visual control over the animal and the duty to recall it in the presence of any risk situations. The obligation to look after an animal does not only fall on the owner of the animal, but it exists whenever there is a relationship even of simple detention between the animal and a given subject. It is appropriate to consider that poor management of animals can also have criminal consequences for the owner. The Court of Cassation, indeed, recently spoke out regarding the episode of a dog bite given to a five-year-old child, attributing responsibility for the incident to the owner. In the present case, the boy had entered a garden area reserved for dogs accompanied by his grandmother, in which there was a German shepherd, left free by the owner who was sitting on a bench with another dog in her arms. While the grandmother, who was holding the child's hand, she had turned to close the entrance gate to the park area, the child was suddenly bitten on the leg by the German shepherd. The owner of the dog did not notice what had happened and only intervened later to pull the dog away from the child. Following the episode, the young man suffered serious injuries to his leg, in the rear left. The owner of the animal claimed that the grandmother was responsible, as he had accompanied the child to an area designated for dog walking. In particular, the accused appealed to the Court of Cassation denouncing the lack or illogicality of the motivation for the contested provision as the second instance judge had not assessed the grandmother's conduct, as guardian of the minor, the dog's action being considered a further conduct, next, unpredictable, suitable in itself to exclude the etiological connection pursuant to the art. 41 c.p., comma 2. In the case examined, the Court of Cassation held that despite the animal being in the area reserved for dogs, the owner did not respect the necessary prudential rules. She only realized what had happened later, failing to exercise any form of surveillance, as he had left the dog unattended, without any visual control over it. According to the Supreme Court, the mistress had to intervene immediately, it had to be equipped with a muzzle to put on the dog, which he did not have with him on that occasion. The Supreme Court confirmed this, the first degree sentence for the crime envisaged and punished by art. 590 c.p., in relation to the art. 672 c.p. for the personal injuries caused to the boy. L’art. 672 c.p., labeled "failure to keep and mismanage animals", provides for the need to keep an animal with due precautions. The provision is aimed at protecting public order, preserving the safety and tranquility of associates. L’art. 672 c.p. in particular, connects the duty not to leave an animal free with that of looking after it adequately, with due precautions. This contravention is identified as an instant crime with permanent effects, which cease with the removal of the dangerous situation for public safety. Three criminal cases are covered by the law: leave free, keep dangerous animals without due caution and entrust them to an inexperienced person. In the event of injuries caused to third parties by a poorly kept animal, to evaluate the behavior of the person held in custody, guilt must be positively established. The agent then, does not want to realize the legal event, which however occurs due to negligent conduct, carelessly out of ignorance. For the operation of the crime, There is no need to ascertain whether the animal is dangerous: abandonment or inadequate storage in an open place is sufficient. In this case the danger is presumed, as it must be understood as deriving from the very fact of leaving it without or with inadequate custody. So, it is necessary to evaluate whether the contravention referred to in art. 672 c.p. occurs only in the event of failure to keep a dog, which has certain dangerous characteristics, or it can be configured in relation to any dog, also domestic. On the verge, the Court of Cassation expressed itself by deeming that the scope of application of art.672 c.p.. overwhelms any type of dog, also domestic, considering that “…the dangerousness of animals cannot be considered only in relation to wild animals, but it can also exist for pets that, in given circumstances, they can become dangerous, including the dog, normally tame animal, the danger of which must be concretely ascertained, considering the race to which one belongs and any other relevant element." As regards criminal liability, the owner or keeper of an animal at the time of the attack can also be held accountable pursuant to art. 590 cp (of the negligent personal injury network) when a person suffers personal injuries due to negligent acts of lack of custody or supervision. The commission of the crime of negligent personal injury has the nature of an instant crime and occurs at the moment of the onset of the injury, so that the duration or incurability of the same are completely irrelevant for the purposes of identifying the consummatory moment. Pursuant to art. 40 comma 2 c.p., the crime of improper negligence exists, whenever the agent with his omissive conduct causes an event which should not have occurred and of which, by virtue of a legal rule, should have prevented it from occurring. The normative equivalence between not preventing and causing the event is determined. In light of what has been said, the need emerges for the owner of an animal to look after and control it, to take every precaution to prevent and avoid any possible aggression against third parties. The concept of due precautions includes not only those imposed by regulatory provisions, but also all the precautions recommended by common prudence, as long as they are suitable for neutralizing the dangerous tendencies and attitudes of animals.