Dog fatally attacks burglar. Is the owner guilty of anything?

Question

A person owns a large, potentially dangerous dog breed such as the XL Bully, which was recently restricted in the UK. It is owned legally; the dog is registered, neutered, and all safety requirements are followed. During the night, this home is burgled and the dog, out of fear, attacks and kills this intruder. The owner, being in bed, had no time to get downstairs and intervene. The dog attacked out of fear, and I'm assuming there are no requirements for a dog to he muzzled or confined within their own home so the owner, as far as I'm aware, has done nothing wrong.

Would would the owner be guilty of anything criminally, or be liable for a wrongful death suit?

Answer 1

The owner has no criminal liability

In the united-kingdom, criminal liability in a situation like this would be governed by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. In particular, see Section 3 (Keeping dogs under proper control):

(1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in any place in England or Wales (whether or not a public place)

• a) the owner; and

• b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,

is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person [or assistance dog], an aggravated offence, under this subsection.

Under most circumstances, this would render the owner criminally liable for such damage. However, there is an exception raised immediately below this subsection:

(1A) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case which is a householder case.

A "householder case" is defined as one in which a) the dog acted dangerously inside a place of dwelling or accommodation, and b) the victim was either a trespasser or reasonably believed to be a trespasser. This would protect the owner from criminal liability.

---

Your answer specifically mentions death, so it's worth noting that for a conviction of murder or voluntary manslaughter, the defendant must have intent to kill (which is not present here). Similarly, for involuntary manslaughter, the defendant must act recklessly (which is not the case here either).

---

The owner has no civil liability

There is a separate question on whether the owner will incur civil liability (ie be sued). The law here is governed by the Occupier's Liability Act 1984 (the duty owed by occupiers to trespassers). This is not to be confused with the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 which relates to visitors rather than trespassers. In particular, see Section 1 (Duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors):

(3) An occupier of premises owes a duty to another (not being his visitor) in respect of any such risk as is referred to in subsection (1) above if —

• a) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;

• b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger (in either case, whether the other has lawful authority for being in that vicinity or not); and

• c) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection.

On the facts presented in your question, there is no reason to believe that there will be trespassers on his premises. Similarly, even if this were the case, the question would then be whether or not the owner should reasonably be expected to offer protection. This is a question of fact, not law, and would depend upon the specific circumstances. Based on your description, however, it seems unlikely that the burglar will succeed in either of these cases. Lastly, even if the owner was found to have satisfied the above, the defence of illegality (ie damages suffered while committing a serious crime are unlikely to be recoverable) applies.

---

In summary: on the facts presented in the question, there is no case for criminal or civil liability. On additional facts, there could be, however, the defence of illegality is likely to protect the owner from civil liability.

Answer 2

Louisiana, USA Civil Code (Louisiana is more likely to place civil liability codes in statutes versus common law, though common law does apply in LA).

Art. 2321. Damage caused by animals

The owner of an animal is answerable for the damage caused by the animal. However, he is answerable for the damage only upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that his animal's behavior would cause damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care. Nonetheless, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for damages for injuries to persons or property caused by the dog and which the owner could have prevented and which did not result from the injured person's provocation of the dog [emphasis mine]. Nothing in this Article shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case.

A burglar's presence would likely be assumed to provoke a dog, but from a civil standpoint this would be adjudicated at trial. I find it unlikely a burglar's estate would prevail. Notwithstanding urban legends of crooks suing from getting injured while committing robbery, this is just not permitted any more without extreme extenuating circumstances.

Criminality of defense against a burglar would fall under Castle Doctrine. Castle doctrine in Louisiana a permits use of deadly force against an intruder. This does not implicitly give your dog permission to kill an intruder, but I find any outcome other than declaring the dog a hero unlikely.

Louisiana Revied Statute 14:20

§20. Justifiable homicide

A. A homicide is justifiable... (4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.