A DOG accidentally head butted a barrister, Judge James Carroll has decided.
He handed down his decision in Dublin Circuit Civil Court yesterday. Asked to decide whether the dog's behaviour when being fed constituted an attack or an accident, he held that a dog did have the ability to form an intention to attack but on that occasion it was excited and playful.
Judge Carroll was told that Mr Finnbarr McElligott, a barrister of Waterloo Avenue, Dublin, had agreed to look after the Dublin home of his lifelong friend, Mr Stuart Kenny, and feed his Labrador, Whistler, while the Kennys were on holidays.
The court was told that Whistler had jumped up and its forehead and nose had collided with Mr McElligott's face as he fed it, smashing one of his teeth.
Judge Carroll said there had been no evidence of hostility whatsoever on the part of the dog. He dismissed Mr McElligott's claim for damages for personal injuries.
He said that under the 1986 Dogs Act, an owner was liable for any damages caused in an attack by his or her dog - but an attack had to consist of a hostile act on the part of the dog ... something intended to cause harm.
Judge Carroll rejected a submission that Mr Kenny was liable in common law negligence, in that the dog's propensity to jump should have been foreseeable and should have been indicated to McElligott.