The owner of aggressive breed dogs owes a duty of care to prevent injury to others, and failure to secure them constitutes negligence.

JUDGMENT

Surita Budin SCJ:

After Full Trial [Enclosure 11]

A. Introduction

[1] On 15 July 2024, this Court has allowed the Plaintiffs' claim with costs. Aggrieved by this decision, Defendant is now appealing to the High Court . Below are my grounds of the said decision.

B. Brief Facts

[2] The Plaintiffs' cause of action is premised on negligence.

[3] The Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendant is for special and general damages for the injuries suffered as a result of attack from the Defendant's dogs.

[4] The 1st Plaintiff is the mother of the 2nd Plaintiff. The 2nd Plaintiff is a minor, suing by her mother.

[5] The Defendant is the owner of two Rottweilers. A Rottweiler is a large breed dog and prone to aggressive behavior.

[6] The Plaintiffs and the Defendant stay in the same neighbourhood at Kepayang Height.

[7] On 27 April 2019, while the Plaintiffs were passing by the Defendant's premise after their evening walk at Kepayang Hill, all of a sudden, one of the Defendant's dogs came out from the Defendant's premise and attacked the 2nd Plaintiff.

[8] The 2nd Plaintiff was attacked and dragged by the dog. In order to stop the attack from the Rottweiler, the 1st Plaintiff protected her daughter by hugging her daughter, and shielded her daughter from the dog attack.

[9] While the 1st Plaintiff was shielding her daughter, the Defendant's dog continued to bite the left hand of the 1st Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs screamed for help and the neighbour residing in the opposite house of the Defendant came out to assist the Plaintiffs.

[10] The Defendant only came out after the biting incident. She tried to pull her dog back to her house, while pulling one of her dogs, another Rottweiler attacked the 1st Plaintiffs left palm.

[11] Due to the negligence of the Defendant, both the Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages. Hence, the Plaintiffs filed this present claim.

C. Defence

[12] The Defendant is resisting the claim on the following grounds:

(a) The Defendant claimed 1st Plaintiff's conduct holding a wooden stick has provoked the dogs causing the same to break out from the gate and attacked the provoker.

(b) The dogs are fully trained, vaccinated and licenced from Jabatan Perkhidmatan Veterinar, Negeri Sembilan since 2018.

(c) The dogs are not the type which can injure or attack anyone unless disturbed and/or provoked and/or trespassed the premise they guarded. They do not unreasonably attack or a threat to anyone.

(d) The dogs were unleashed and may roam freely within the gated and secured compound.

(e) The Defendant offered assistance to the Plaintiffs and agreed to pay the medical bills on goodwill basis and was informed the costs is estimated around RM10,000.00 only.

D. Witnesses

[13] The Plaintiff has called three (3) witnesses as follows:

a) Dr Hana Mazuliana binti Solehan [SP1] - specialist doctor

b) Mrs Yap Siew Ling [SP2] - 1st Plaintiff

c) Mr Ponusamy a/l Podian [SP3] - neighbour/eye witness

[14] Whereas Defendant called three (3) witnesses as follows:

a) Mr Ahmad Shukri bin Mahmud [SD1] - Officer from Jabatan Perkhidmatan Veterinar

b) Mr Subramaniam a/l Narayannan [SD2] - Dogs' trainer

c) Mrs Lim Chwee Tin [SD3] - Defendant

E. Findings Of This Court

[15] Upon in-depth consideration of the rival contentions and the whole spectrum of the pleadings and evidence, the Court found that on the balance of probabilities that the Plaintiffs successfully proved their case and made a finding of facts that the dogs were under the custody, control and ownership of the Defendant had caused injury Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Defendant has breached the duty of care when it failed and/or refused and/or defaulted in ensuring that the dogs were kept, controlled and cared for properly resulting an unforeseen attack on the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Defendant was one hundred percent (100%) negligent and liable for causing the injuries suffered by both Plaintiffs.

F. Law On Negligence

[16] Before addressing the competing submissions advanced by the pa