Dog Bite (Tort): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
Line 7: Line 7:
[12] The Defendants are the owners of Oscar and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the damages resulting from the injury to Zoe.
[12] The Defendants are the owners of Oscar and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the damages resulting from the injury to Zoe.


[13] Non-pecuniary general damages are those damages awarded for pain and suffering, injury to health, loss of ability to enjoy the normal amenities of life, and personal inconvenience which flow naturally from the injuries that were sustained: [http://canlii.ca/t/1vtmt Strom (Litigation Guardian) v. White (1994), 1994 CanLII 7342 (ON SC), 21 O.R. (3d) 205, 1994 CarswellOnt 160, at para. 23 (S.C.J.)].  The “monetary evaluation of non-pecuniary losses is a philosophical and policy exercise more than a legal or logical one”: Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1 (SCC), (1978) 2 S.C.R. 229, at p. 261.
[13] Non-pecuniary general damages are those damages awarded for pain and suffering, injury to health, loss of ability to enjoy the normal amenities of life, and personal inconvenience which flow naturally from the injuries that were sustained: [http://canlii.ca/t/1vtmt Strom (Litigation Guardian) v. White (1994), 1994 CanLII 7342 (ON SC), 21 O.R. (3d) 205, 1994 CarswellOnt 160, at para. 23 (S.C.J.)].  The “monetary evaluation of non-pecuniary losses is a philosophical and policy exercise more than a legal or logical one”:[http://canlii.ca/t/1mkb5 Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1 (SCC), (1978) 2 S.C.R. 229, at p. 261].


[14] In Moretto v. Nicolini-Femia, 2017 ONSC 3945, at para. 62, Shaughnessy J. noted that case law is of limited utility in dog bite cases because the assessment of damages is very much case specific.  The case law nonetheless provides some guidance as to a potential range of damages.  In Moretto, both parties provided detailed expert evidence pertaining to the diagnosis and prognosis of the plaintiff’s injuries, which included facial scarring.  Shaughnessy J. assessed damages for physical injury at $40,000 and damages for psychological injury at $5,000.  A further $12,500 was awarded for future care costs for laser treatments and sunscreen.
[14] In Moretto v. Nicolini-Femia, 2017 ONSC 3945, at para. 62, Shaughnessy J. noted that case law is of limited utility in dog bite cases because the assessment of damages is very much case specific.  The case law nonetheless provides some guidance as to a potential range of damages.  In Moretto, both parties provided detailed expert evidence pertaining to the diagnosis and prognosis of the plaintiff’s injuries, which included facial scarring.  Shaughnessy J. assessed damages for physical injury at $40,000 and damages for psychological injury at $5,000.  A further $12,500 was awarded for future care costs for laser treatments and sunscreen.


[15] In Strom v. White, a six-year old boy suffered three lacerations with ongoing scars and psychological trauma resulting from a dog bite.  Kozak J. awarded $22,000 in general damages.  In Meloche v. Bezaire, [2005] O.J. No. 947 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff suffered ongoing trauma, pain and visible scarring on her leg and was awarded $30,000.  In Zhan v. Kumar, [2008] O.J. No. 1102 (S.C.J.), the court awarded $35,000 in general damages to the plaintiff, who suffered lacerations to his face, residual numbness and depression.
[15] In Strom v. White, a six-year old boy suffered three lacerations with ongoing scars and psychological trauma resulting from a dog bite.  Kozak J. awarded $22,000 in general damages.  In Meloche v. Bezaire, [2005] O.J. No. 947 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff suffered ongoing trauma, pain and visible scarring on her leg and was awarded $30,000.  In Zhan v. Kumar, [2008] O.J. No. 1102 (S.C.J.), the court awarded $35,000 in general damages to the plaintiff, who suffered lacerations to his face, residual numbness and depression.

Revision as of 05:40, 5 May 2020


Curwen v. Srivathsan, 2019 ONSC 6547 (CanLII)

[11] Subsection 2(1) of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act states that the owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animal. Pursuant to s. 2(2), where there is more than one owner of a dog, they are jointly and severally liable.

[12] The Defendants are the owners of Oscar and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the damages resulting from the injury to Zoe.

[13] Non-pecuniary general damages are those damages awarded for pain and suffering, injury to health, loss of ability to enjoy the normal amenities of life, and personal inconvenience which flow naturally from the injuries that were sustained: Strom (Litigation Guardian) v. White (1994), 1994 CanLII 7342 (ON SC), 21 O.R. (3d) 205, 1994 CarswellOnt 160, at para. 23 (S.C.J.). The “monetary evaluation of non-pecuniary losses is a philosophical and policy exercise more than a legal or logical one”:Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1 (SCC), (1978) 2 S.C.R. 229, at p. 261.

[14] In Moretto v. Nicolini-Femia, 2017 ONSC 3945, at para. 62, Shaughnessy J. noted that case law is of limited utility in dog bite cases because the assessment of damages is very much case specific. The case law nonetheless provides some guidance as to a potential range of damages. In Moretto, both parties provided detailed expert evidence pertaining to the diagnosis and prognosis of the plaintiff’s injuries, which included facial scarring. Shaughnessy J. assessed damages for physical injury at $40,000 and damages for psychological injury at $5,000. A further $12,500 was awarded for future care costs for laser treatments and sunscreen.

[15] In Strom v. White, a six-year old boy suffered three lacerations with ongoing scars and psychological trauma resulting from a dog bite. Kozak J. awarded $22,000 in general damages. In Meloche v. Bezaire, [2005] O.J. No. 947 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff suffered ongoing trauma, pain and visible scarring on her leg and was awarded $30,000. In Zhan v. Kumar, [2008] O.J. No. 1102 (S.C.J.), the court awarded $35,000 in general damages to the plaintiff, who suffered lacerations to his face, residual numbness and depression.