Quinlisk v. Kearney & Ors

Some time after 11.30 p.m. on a dry summer's evening on the 7 th June, 1999 the plaintiff was returning from a meeting of Muintir na Tire in Roscrea. She was left off by her friend at the entrance to Sheehane estate where she and the defendants lived and was proceeding towards her house on the footpath at the side of the green, when a dog accosted her from behind in a threatening and hostile manner, causing her to fall to the ground. She suffered an injury to her pelvis, was in considerable pain, crossed the road and crawled home holding on to the wall.

The net issue in this case is whether the dog, which she described as a brown terrier-like dog, was in the care, management and/or control of the defendants.

It would appear, that in addition to the statutory liability, there also remains the common law remedy under the scienter action and, of course, the liability in negligence is provided for in Kavanagh v. Stokes [1942] I.R. 596 or in trespass (if the owner has commanded the dog to attack).

Damage caused in an attack on a person need not involve physical contact � the word 'attack' though not defined in this Act has been judicially defined as including an assault which does not, necessarily, involve battery. Indeed, in the commentary to this section Kerr, Irish Current Law Statutes Annotated at 86/32-44 suggests that physical contact may arise where a person falls and injures themselves when getting out of the way of an attacking dog.

It is clear that the s. 21(1) does not impose liability for any injury other than "damage caused in an attack on any person". Accordingly, where a dog runs out into the road and a motorcyclist collides with it causing himself injury, the necessary ingredients of 'attack' may not be present.