A woman demanded 26 thousand hryvnias for the treatment of a dog attacked by a neighbor's German shepherd: why the court refused

The dog owner tried to recover over 26,000 UAH in material and moral damages from her neighbor through the court, claiming that his German shepherd bit her pet. Despite providing receipts for treatment, video recordings, and police reports, the court denied the claim. The reason was that the plaintiff failed to provide proper evidence that the defendant’s dog caused the injuries, as well as failed to prove all the conditions necessary for imposing civil liability. This conclusion was reached by the Pervomaiskyi City District Court of Mykolaiv region.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding the neighbor pay 21,776.50 UAH for the dog’s treatment expenses and 5,000 UAH for moral damages.

She claimed that at the beginning of December 2025, surveillance cameras repeatedly recorded German shepherds, which she considered belonged to the defendant, running unsupervised on the street and entering her property. According to the plaintiff, on December 19, 2025, one of these dogs attacked her mixed-breed dog and caused bodily injuries.

Afterwards, the animal underwent treatment, which, according to the provided documents, cost 21,776.50 UAH. In addition to material damages, the plaintiff sought compensation for moral damages, explaining that she experienced severe stress, worried about her pet’s life, lost sleep, and began fearing for the safety of her minor child because, in her opinion, the defendant continued to let his dogs out without proper control.

She also reported that she contacted the police. The police response stated that as a result of the investigation, a protocol on an administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 154 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses was drawn up against the guilty person.

Defendant’s position

The defendant did not acknowledge the claim.

He confirmed that he owns a German shepherd but stated that he properly keeps it. He also explained that he is a serviceman temporarily living with other military personnel who also have dogs.

In his opinion, the video provided by the plaintiff does not confirm that his dog attacked the plaintiff’s animal. Furthermore, he pointed out that the plaintiff sought veterinary care only eight days after the incident, so, in his view, the injuries could have been caused under different circumstances.

The defendant also denied that an administrative offense protocol was drawn up against him.

Why the court refused the claim

The court noted that according to the Civil Code, animals are a special object of civil rights subject to the legal regime of things. The owner of an animal whose rights are violated has the right to claim compensation for material and moral damages.

At the same time, to establish the obligation to compensate for damages, it is necessary to prove all elements of a civil offense: the presence of damage, unlawful behavior, a causal link between such behavior and the damage, as well as the fault of the person who caused it. The burden of proof of these circumstances lies with the plaintiff.

After examining case materials 484/1904/26, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence that the defendant’s dog caused injuries to her pet.

In particular, the court noted that the police response contains information about the drawing up of a protocol under Part 1 of Article 154 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses regarding the "guilty person." However, the plaintiff did not provide a copy of this protocol, and the court’s inquiry confirmed that administrative materials concerning the defendant under Article 154 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses were not submitted to the court. Under these circumstances, the court could not establish that the administrative protocol was drawn up specifically against the defendant.

Moreover, the court examined the surveillance video and noted that it only shows a dog running on the street but does not capture the moment of the attack on the plaintiff’s dog. Therefore, this evidence does not confirm the circumstances to which she referred.

The court also emphasized that the mere fact that the defendant owns a German shepherd does not indicate his liability without other proper evidence confirming unlawful behavior and a causal link to the damage caused.

Court conclusion

After evaluating all the evidence collectively, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not prove with proper and admissible evidence the unlawful behavior of the defendant, his fault, or the causal link between his actions and the claimed damage.

Since the necessary conditions for imposing civil liability were not confirmed, the court denied the claim for recovery of material and moral damages.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay updated on the most important events.