In the case of assault of a girl, by a dog, he meets the owner of the possible injury of the animal. This was established by the Sixth Chamber of the Supreme Court, by decision of 27 September 2010, No 34,813 with which he has declared inadmissible the action brought by a man against the decision of the local courts with which he had been convicted of bodily harm as a result of the bite that her dog had given to a passerby.
thus rejecting the argument of the accused, who claimed not to be responsible for the dog because it was owned della madre e della nonna, e di essere intervenuto solo quando aveva sentito le urla della ragazza allo scopo di riportare il cane nell’abitazione.
I giudici di legittimità i quali hanno sottolineato come, in tema di custodia di animali, " l'obbligo sorge ogni volta che sussista una relazione di possesso o di semplice detenzione tra l'animale e una data persona, posto che l'art. 672 c.p. relaziona l'obbligo di non lasciare libero l'animale o di custodirlo con le debite cautele al possesso dell'animale, possesso da intendersi come detenzione anche solo materiale e di fatto senza che sia necessario che sussista una relazione di proprietà in senso civilistico ".
In this case, the judges continue, the animal was certainly believed to be in possession of the accused, as was shown by circumstantial determinants data. For example, it was the very man, who lived in his mother's home and in daily contact with the animal to retrieve the dog, to give explanations to compiling it and bring the dog by veterinarians for the necessary investigations.
Here is the sentence in full.
Supreme Court
SECTION IV CRIMINAL
Judgement of 2 July to 27 September 2010 No 34,813
Conduct of trial - Reasons for Decision
By decision of 19 May 2009 the Court of Palermo declared VM guilty of negligently causing injury to the detriment of the MLP that on *** *, had been bitten by the dog belonging to the accused, and, given the extenuating circumstances, condemned him to the punishment of 100.00 euros in fines and damages in favor of a civil party.
The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, with whom he alleges violation of the law and failure to state reasons for withholding the existence of a causal link between the conduct of due all'imputato e l'evento lesivo.
In sostanza si duole che si sia giunti alla affermazione della sua responsabilità senza tenere conto che il cane era della famiglia, più precisamente era di proprietà della madre o della nonna, e che egli era intervenuto solo quando aveva sentito le urla della ragazza, per riportare il cane nella abitazione.
Il motivo di ricorso è manifestamente infondato.
Il Tribunale ha osservato che l'animale era sicuramente nel possesso del V. e ciò ha desunto dal fatto che fu proprio il V. a richiamare il cane, a dare spiegazioni ai verbalizzanti e a portare l'animale dai veterinari per i controlli; che egli abitava nella casa the mother and in daily contact with the animal that the obedient and took a walk. Therefore he was properly held responsible of non custody of the animal, that obligation under Article. Cp 672 falls on the holder, regardless of ownership of the animal, have to be understood in a broad sense as explained by this section in its ruling of 16.12.1998 No RV 599 212 404, that "When it comes to keeping animals, the obligation arises whenever there is a relationship of ownership or mere possession of the animal and a person, since Article. 672 cod. Pen. relates to the obligation not to free up the animal or keep it with due caution to the possession of the animal, have also to be understood as holding only material and in fact it is not necessary that there be a relation of ownership in civil law sense. (Which is on the liability for bodily harm occasioned by the bite of a dog).
The appeal must therefore be declared inadmissible under Article. 591 cpp, Lett. D was time waiver.
Here as required by art. 616 same code, being ordered to pay court costs and to pay the sum of Euro 1,000.00 (one thousand/00), equitable determined in favor of cash fines is not clear why, even in light of the Constitutional Court ruling No. 186, 2000, to exclude this last sentence.
; ; ; P.Q.M.
LA CORTE
Dichiara inammissibile il ricorso e condanna il ricorrente al pagamento delle spese processuali e della somma di Euro 1000,00 in favore della Cassa delle ammende.
