The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has upheld a ruling requiring the owner of an American Bully to pay a fine of €2,800 after the dog attacked a man in Tazacorte Marina, La Palma.
The court found the owner guilty of negligence for failing to properly control the dog, which was loose, without a lead or muzzle, at the time of the incident.
The attack occurred on 26th October 2022, when the dog lunged at the victim, causing injuries that took 45 days to heal. Of these, 20 days were classified as moderate personal harm, leaving the victim with slight aesthetic damage.
The American Bully, a breed categorised as "potentially dangerous" due to its lineage and physical characteristics, is subject to strict handling regulations, including the mandatory use of a lead and muzzle.
Court’s Rationale
The court criticised the owner’s lack of responsibility, stating it was unacceptable to allow such a dog to roam freely in an urban area. The ruling emphasized that the failure to control the animal posed a clear and foreseeable risk, especially given the breed's classification and associated dangers.
“This demonstrates a grave lack of caution,” the court declared, describing the owner's actions as a "blatant disregard for public safety." While the offence was categorised as minor negligence, it highlighted the serious implications of handling potentially dangerous animals irresponsibly.
Context of the Attack
The victim was walking his pet when the American Bully approached aggressively. Attempting to protect his much smaller dog, the victim picked it up, at which point the American Bully bit him. The injuries sustained were documented in a medical report submitted during the proceedings.
The dog owner sought acquittal, arguing that no evidence of negligence had been presented and claiming the dog acted in self-defence. However, the court rejected these claims, citing the lack of credible proof to support the defence.
Final Verdict
The initial ruling was made by the Los Llanos de Aridane court, and the Provincial Court's decision is final, leaving no room for further appeals.
The case serves as a cautionary tale about the responsibilities of owning and managing potentially dangerous animals, with the court stressing the importance of adhering to established safety protocols to prevent similar incidents in the future.
