The Criminal Division of the Supreme Court has convicted a woman of serious negligence resulting in injury for walking her dog, a potentially dangerous breed, loose and without a muzzle. The dog attacked a 5-year-old girl while she was playing in a playground with her grandfather, causing injuries to her buttocks.
According to the proven facts, the accused took her American Staffordshire Terrier out loose and without a muzzle in the vicinity of the Plaza Profesor Tierno Galván in Valencia, knowing that it belonged to a potentially dangerous breed of dog and that there was a risk that it could harm the physical integrity of the people it met. The animal ran towards the minor, pounced on her and began to bite her buttocks, while her grandfather tried to get it off him by hitting him, without success. Then the owner of the animal arrived, who managed to remove the dog from the girl’s body by grabbing it by the jaws and opening its mouth. As a result of the attack, the girl suffered a dog bite on her left buttock that caused injuries and a 6-centimetre scar.
The court upheld the appeal of the prosecutor and annulled the sentence of the Provincial Court of Valencia that downgraded the injuries to a less serious negligence by removing from the proven facts the phrase “…and that there was a risk that it could undermine the physical integrity of people”, referring to the knowing action that would have presided over the will of the dog’s owner. For this reason, it acquitted the woman, considering that the events on the date they occurred were atypical, since until the entry into force of Organic Law 2/2019, of March 1, less serious negligence resulting in injuries was not considered punishable.
The Court, however, considers that this is a case of serious negligence and reestablishes the sentence of a Valencia court that sentenced the accused for the crime of injury due to serious negligence, with the mitigating circumstance of undue delay, to a fine of ten months, with a daily rate of 6 euro, and to pay compensation of 5,366 to the legal representative of the minor for the injuries and consequences suffered.
The court indicates that it is enough to examine the administrative regulations that impose the care and breeding of an animal of this breed to realise the potential risk that its careless ownership can entail and points out that Decree 16/2025, of February 6, of the Consell, which regulates the ownership of potentially dangerous animals, expresses this clearly.
The judgment, presented by the president of the Chamber, Manuel Marchena, states that he agrees with the reasoning of the criminal judge who in his resolution reasons the seriousness of the imprudence committed by the dog’s owner in the following terms: “… And in the case at hand, the accused, knowing that her American Staffordshire Terrier belonged to a breed of potentially dangerous dogs (at no time during the trial has it been questioned that she knew such a condition of the animal) failed to comply with the most basic rules of prudence, in violation of the regulatory norms listed above, and put at risk the physical integrity of the people with whom the animal could be found.
The accused maintains that her dog is tame, sweet and affectionate, and has provided photographs of the animal with another girl to try to prove this. But the law has decided to classify a series of dog breeds as potentially dangerous precisely because they have a very marked character, strong muscles, a powerful, robust appearance, athletic build, agility, vigour and endurance, and whose instincts cannot be completely annulled, but only mitigated and controlled.
The Court notes that the court’s ruling stated that the veterinarian who declared, at the request of the defence, that, although the dog behaved docilely during his consultation, it is a dangerous breed of dog and care must be taken.
The court also agrees with the reasoning of the lower court ruling that the fact of the attack on the minor, which was not disputed by the accused, removed any doubt about the dog’s friendliness. Therefore, the owner of the animal had committed serious negligence by violating the regulations, taking it without a leash and without a muzzle and without foreseeing the possibility that her dog, being of a certain size and a breed with a strong character, could attack someone in the urban and populated area in which it was found.
