Keep your dog leashed; animal-injury liability does not depend simply on proving your fault
If your animal injures someone, you generally owe compensation even without proof that you personally acted negligently. Proof of the injured person’s intent or gross negligence can sometimes reduce or remove liability. If you breached safety-management rules, such as failing to leash when required, only the injured person’s intentional conduct remains a statutory ground for reducing liability under that provision. Prohibited dangerous animals receive still stricter treatment.
What it takes
A leash costs a few dozen RMB. The continuing effort is remembering to use it every time.
What you may gain
Under Civil Code Article 1245, an animal’s keeper or manager is liable for harm it causes, with possible reduction or exemption if the harm resulted from the injured person’s intentional conduct or gross negligence. Article 1246 applies where management rules were breached and safety measures omitted: intentional conduct by the injured person can reduce liability, but the broader defenses of the preceding article do not apply in the same way. Article 1247 imposes liability for injuries caused by dangerous animals whose keeping is prohibited. Article 1249 keeps responsibility with the original keeper or manager for damage caused while an animal is abandoned or has escaped.
Context & considerations
Compensation after a dog bite can include medical treatment, lost earnings, rabies vaccine, and immunoglobulin. The original describes bills above RMB 10,000 as common, with larger sums for serious injury or injuries to children. Abandoning the animal does not remove responsibility for injuries during abandonment or escape. For what to do after a bite, see chapter 13.
Research & references
National People’s Congress (2020). Civil Code, Articles 1245, 1246, 1247, and 1249, full text reposted by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/fl/202006/t20200602_463888.shtml.