Akita bit the neighbor's spaniel: the court forced the owner to pay over 20 thousand hryvnias

The Stryi City District Court of Lviv region considered civil case No. 456/1749/26 on compensation for material damage caused by the attack of a domestic dog on another domestic animal. The court examined whether the expenses of the dog owners for its treatment are subject to compensation, as well as whether other claimed expenses can be recovered.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiffs applied to the court demanding to recover from the owner of the "American Akita" dog breed 21,954 UAH in material damages and court costs. They stated that the defendant is their neighbor, and her dog bit their spaniel on December 25, 2025.

Earlier, by the decision of the Stryi City District Court of Lviv region dated February 17, 2026, the defendant was found guilty of an administrative offense under part three of article 154 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses but was released from administrative liability with a verbal warning.

The plaintiffs indicated that as a result of the attack, they had to repeatedly visit the veterinary clinic, pay for treatment, medications, and veterinary procedures. The total amount of treatment expenses, according to their calculations, was 20,650 UAH. In addition, they requested reimbursement of 1,304 UAH for taxi expenses to the veterinary clinic. In total, 21,954 UAH in material damages was claimed.

The defendant did not submit a response to the claim and did not appear in court again, although she was duly notified of the case hearing. Therefore, the case was considered in absentia in accordance with article 280 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Position and conclusions of the court

The court established that the fact of the defendant’s dog attacking the plaintiffs' dog was already confirmed by a court decision in the administrative offense case. According to part six of article 82 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, such a decision, which has entered into legal force, is binding for the court when considering a civil case only in terms of establishing the fact of the relevant actions and that they were committed by this person. Therefore, the defendant’s guilt in causing damage did not require repeated proof.

The court noted that according to article 180 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, animals are a special object of civil rights, to which the legal regime of things applies. Therefore, a domestic dog is the property of its owner, and damage caused to such property is subject to compensation under general rules of tort liability.

Applying the provisions of article 1166 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the court emphasized that damage caused to the property of an individual is compensated in full by the person who caused it. Civil law presumes the fault of the person causing the damage, and the defendant must prove the absence of their fault. The court also referred to the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court set out in the decision dated February 14, 2018, in case No. 686/10520/15-c, according to which an unrebutted presumption of fault is a legal basis for imposing the obligation to compensate for damage.

Additionally, the court drew attention to the requirements of article 9 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Protection of Animals from Cruelty" and the Rules for Keeping Domestic and Farm Animals in the territory of the Stryi City Territorial Community. The owner of a domestic animal is obliged to ensure the safety of people, other animals, and property, exercise direct control over the animal’s behavior, and not leave it unattended. The rules also require walking dogs in public places on a leash, and for dangerous breeds — also with a muzzle.

Evaluating the evidence provided, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' treatment expenses for the dog in the amount of 20,650 UAH are documented. At the same time, the claim for reimbursement of 1,304 UAH for taxi expenses is denied because the provided receipt did not contain the final destination of the trip and did not confirm the fact of payment.

The court also denied the recovery of 2,500 UAH for professional legal assistance because the plaintiffs did not provide proper evidence that these expenses were incurred specifically in this case, nor did they confirm their amount with relevant documents.

Separately, the court resolved the issue of court costs. Since the defendant is a person with a Group I disability and, according to paragraph 9 of part one of article 5 of the Law of Ukraine "On Court Fees," is exempt from paying it, the court had no legal grounds to recover court fees from her in favor of the plaintiffs. The court ordered the reimbursement of the court fee paid by the plaintiffs in the amount of 1,252.13 UAH at the expense of the state in accordance with part six of article 141 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

As a result of the case consideration, the court partially satisfied the claim and recovered from the defendant in favor of the plaintiffs 20,650 UAH in material damages caused by the dog’s treatment expenses. The court denied the rest of the claims.

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