In recent years, more and more people like to keep dogs. Some dog owners believe that keeping a dog can kill two birds with one stone. The owner can accompany the owner when he is at home, and the owner can guard the door when he goes out. It follows that thieves claiming for burglary after being bitten by a dog also occur from time to time. So, if the thief breaks into the house while the householder is not at home and is bitten by the householder's dog, does the householder need to compensate? According to reports, Zhao liked an ancient calligraphy and painting collected by Qian very much and wanted to buy it at a high price, but Qian refused to sell it, so Zhao became a thief. One day, Zhao sneaked into Qian's house when Qian was not at home, and was about to steal the ancient calligraphy and paintings collected by Qian. Unexpectedly, a big dog raised by Qian's house suddenly rushed up. Zhao was caught off guard and was bitten by the dog. The skin was ripped apart, and it was hard to escape. Zhao spent a total of more than 30,000 yuan to treat the trauma caused by dog bites.

Zhao sued the court on the grounds that he was bitten by a dog raised by Qian, and demanded compensation from Qian. After the trial, the court has two different opinions: the first opinion is that Qian should compensate. The reason is that Qian is a dog breeder and should assume the responsibility of the manager. According to the law, if the animals raised cause damage to others, the animal breeder or manager shall bear civil liability; if the damage is caused by the fault of the victim, the animal breeder or manager shall not bear civil liability; In case of damage, the third party shall bear civil liability. Although Zhao was a thief, Qian did not take care of his dog and caused Zhao to be injured. His behavior was at fault, and he should bear certain compensation liabilities. The second opinion is that Qian should not be compensated. The reason is that Zhao accidentally injured himself in the course of his crime,

Be solely responsible for its illegal actions. The dog raised by Qian has been registered with the relevant authorities, and keeping the dog at home will not pose a threat to others. Qian could not have foreseen the occurrence of Zhao’s burglary, and he was not at fault, so he should not be liable for compensation. The author supports the second opinion. In this case, Zhao entered Qian's house on his own to steal, and his behavior was not only at fault but also suspected of committing a crime; Qian's dog-raising procedures were complete and properly managed, and he had no subjective fault, so he should not be liable for compensation. What do you think about this, welcome to leave a message in the comment area.