Last night my landlord's dogs bit/scratched/dented my vehicle and it looks quite costly to repair. This has been confirmed on camera. My landlord has asked for the bill to be split 50/50. His reasoning is that:
Legally speaking (I live in Fiji), should my landlord pay for the full repairs or should it be split?
In Fiji, The Dogs Act 1971 section 9 states:
The owner of every dog shall be liable in damages for any unprovoked injury done by his dog and it shall not be necessary for the party seeking damages to show a previous mischievous propensity in such dog or the owner's knowledge of such mischievous propensity or that the injury was attributed to neglect on the part of the owner of the dog.
This will depend on the jurisdiction.
In the united-kingdom, I think more information is needed. In Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington, Lord Atkin made it clear that
[Failing to control dogs] is a liability which exists only in the case either of wild animals, which have by their nature a mischievous propensity, or of tame animals which are known to the persons having control to have a particular mischievous propensity.
In that case, the dog owner didn't know that his dog would behave harmfully to the public and kept his dog inside a locked car. Later, that dog went mad and smashed the window, which caused injury to the pedestrians walking by. The court ruled that the owner need not be liable for his dog's act as he did not know his dog would commit such an act.
For the united-states:
In McQuaker v Goddard, Scott LJ explained that, as a common law rule, wild animals are presumed to be dangerous to people, while domestic animals are not. Therefore, unless the owner of a domestic animal knows that the animal has a propensity to hurt human beings (or property), there is no liability upon the owner.
So, to claim from the owner, you need to show the court that he is aware of the potential danger and that he negligently forgot to protect public safety.
