Analysis On The Case Of Damage Compensation Of Ms Xiao V. Ms Qiao Feeding Stray Animals

Many problems caused by stray animals have a significant impact on society, more and more nations focus much attention on it. Ms Qiao feeding stray animals caused hurt on neighbor is a typical case of this. The focuses of the controversy in this case are how to identify the responsibility subject of animal tort, how to identify the tort liability of Ms Qiao and whether the plaintiff Ms Xiao has negligence in this case."The Tort Liability Law" had provided the responsible subject of animals tort are breeders or administrators. However, there is no clear standard for the concept. Especially in the case of stray animal torts, because of the instability and mobility of stray animal, it is difficult to identify the responsible subject of them. In this case, beside to distinguishing differences between the feed and breed behavior, there are two more doctrinal standards to judge whether the defendant Ms Qiao is the stray cat breeders or administrators:have benefits to use animals and have right to decide the animals. Ms Qiao was not for her own benefits or controlling the stray cats to feed the strayed cats, which means the defendant Ms Qiao was not the breeder or administrators. The determination of the responsibility of the defendant should be made from the theory of the general tort liability. In this case, the defendant fed the strayed cats for loving animals and it doesn’t exit the fault to damage civil rights of others. Besides, the defendant’s behavior didn’t violate of the law of obligation or against other legal interests. What’s more, the defendant’s behavior didn’t cause the hurts of Ms Xiao. Therefore the defendant Ms Qiao shouldn’t take responsibility. In fact, the responsibility subject of this case is the Residential property Service Corporation. Based on "Property Management Regulations" and the property service contract, it has the obligation to protect the personal and property safety of owners. However, the Residential property Service Corporation failed to take measures to manage the strayed cats. So it appeared the damage of Ms Xiao. In exemption reasons, the plaintiff Ms Xiao has negligence in this case. On the one hand, the dog Ms Xiao had was a large animal, but it was not tied when outside. On the other hand, it was inappropriate of Ms Xiao’s behaviors kicking the stray cat which caused the attack of cat. To the occurrence of the result, it shouldn’t put blame on the plaintiff’s intention or induction, but because plaintiff hadn’t undertaken her obligation requiring her pay enough attention. Therefore there is mitigated responsibility reason in this case. It should correspondingly reduce the liability of the person liable.