Facts
The case concerns a traffic accident in which a dog belonging to a married couple ran onto the road and caused a collision with another vehicle. The dog owner, Mr. M., was not at home at the time of the accident, but abroad. His wife had locked the dog in the kitchen before driving into town herself. How the dog nevertheless ended up on the street could not be conclusively clarified.
The injured party, Mr. B., sued Mr. M. as the dog owner for damages. The Cantonal Court of Geneva had initially dismissed the claim, as it saw Mr. M. as the dog owner as being exempt from liability. Mr. B. then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the complaint. It stated that Mr. M. as the owner of the dog is also considered the keeper even when temporarily absent and leaving the supervision of the animal to his wife. In this case, his wife is to be regarded as his assistant, for whose behavior he is liable.
Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court determined that a strict standard must be applied to the exculpatory evidence of the animal keeper under Art. 56 para. 1 CO. Since in the present case there were doubts as to how the dog actually escaped the…