With No Judgement 8875 the Fourth Criminal Chamber ruled that the obligation of keeping the animals as often arises where a person has a certain relation of possession or mere relationship with the animal. According to the Supreme Court, which has put pen to paper this principle in four pages of reasons, it is not necessary with the animal there is a relationship in prioprietà statutory sense: it is sufficient merely detention. So be liable for negligently causing injury to the jaws of the dog, the man who, despite not being its owner, walking door to the animal without a leash nor muzzle. In particular, the Fourth Criminal Division, in this case, determined that "there is a responsibility also accused - (mere animal holder) - in that, in terms of housing animalei, the obligation arises whenever there is a relation of possession or mere possession of the animal and a particular person, since art. 672 cod. pen. connects the obligation not to leave free the animal and keep it with due caution to the mere possession of the animal, have to be understood as just deternzione material fact, it is not necessary that there be a relation of ownership in civil law sense " .
http://www.studiocataldi.it/news_giuridiche_asp/news_giuridica_9874.asp
0 comments:
Post a Comment