The dog collided with the electric car and caused the cyclist to fall. The dog owner denies this. Can the cyclist still get compensation? Recently, the Rugao City People's Court heard the case of infringement dispute, and finally ordered the dog owner to compensate 150,000 yuan for various losses in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code.

Not long ago, Ms. Yu, who lives in Baipu Town, Rugao, Nantong, was riding an electric bike to work when a black dog suddenly jumped out on the road and got into the front wheel of the lady's electric bike, causing her to fall. Ms. Yu was sent to the hospital for treatment and spent tens of thousands of yuan in medical expenses. It was identified as a grade 10 disability.

After the incident, the Traffic Patrol Brigade determined that Ms. Yu was not responsible and found that the dog was raised by Zhang. Ms. Yu sued Zhang, asking the other party to compensate more than 150,000 yuan for medical expenses, lost work expenses, and disability compensation. Zhang said that his dog did not hit Ms. Yu at all, and the traffic police department did not believe that he was responsible, and refused to compensate.

The Rugao court held that the traffic accident determination letter and the police report proved that the accident was caused by the dog hitting the lady and causing her injury, and Ms. Yu was not responsible. This case is a dispute over human damage caused by raising animals. According to the law, the breeder, namely Zhang, should be liable for compensation. Zhang was dissatisfied with the result of the accident determined by the traffic police department, but did not apply for a review, and there was no evidence to prove his claim. Accordingly, the court upheld Ms. Yu's claim.

The judge introduced that Article 1245 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates that if the animals raised cause damage to others, the animal breeder or manager shall bear the tort liability; however, it can be proved that the damage was caused by the infringed person intentionally Or caused by gross negligence, the liability may not be assumed or mitigated. Article 1246 stipulates that, in violation of management regulations, failing to take safety measures for animals and causing damage to others, the animal breeder or manager shall bear the tort liability; however, if it can be proved that the damage was intentionally caused by the infringed person, the liability may be mitigated. In this case, Zhang did not prove that the damage was caused by Ms. Yu's intentional or gross negligence, so the liability could not be exempted or mitigated.