. Summary of the new Supreme Court Judgment 1639/2565
Who regularly feeds stray dogs and then dogs bite others. Who regularly feeds stray dogs is guilty of criminal law and who regularly feeds stray dogs must also pay for civil damages.
In this case, the defendant did not raise a stray dog that directly committed the crime, but has been feeding such stray dogs for a long time. The defendant did not raise them.The stray dog snake, by locking it up or by chaining it, later on the day of the incident, a child only 2 years and 11 months old was bitten by this stray dog in many places and died later.
The dead child's mother then filed a complaint with the investigators to prosecute the defendant for neglecting the animal, causing bodily harm.M.377 and the crime of negligence, causing others to die according to Phor.M.291 consists of M.59 paragraph four.
The prosecutor's office filed an appeal. The court appealed the judgment to dismiss the prosecution. Later, the prosecutor filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's feeding of stray dogs for years was equivalent to the defendant's.The owner of the dog, by raising it, when a dog bites a child and dies, equals the defendant's negligence.M.59 paragraph 4 and that action causes others to die. Therefore, it is a crime under the Criminal Code. Section 291 considers the breeder of stray dog food to be neglectful of the animal until it harms another person. It is also wrong according to the Criminal Code Section 377. Also, when the defendant let loose that animal bite another person to death like this.Is the damage done because of the stray dog? The defendant, who fed the stray dog, will have to pay for it.To compensate for the child's death because of the animal, according to the Civil and Commercial Code Article 433 paragraph 1.
Which is the payment?The court, however, determines where the substitution is to be applied in accordance with Section 438, paragraph 1, when the mother - child who has jurisdiction over the child's substitution is administered in this case.V. Section 5 (2) applied for participation as a plaintiff with a prosecutor before the first instance court's judgment under paragraph (1).V. Section 3 (2) includes Section 30 and has filed a petition to force the defendant to pay for the payment.substitute according to P.V. Section 44/1 paragraph 1 is a funeral fee of 300,000 baht and a non-supporting allowance of 300,It's $50,000.
When this case is a civil case related to a criminal case, the court in a civil case needs to hold the facts that appear in criminal cases. According to Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it can be heard that the defendant committed a crime in violation of civil cases, the Supreme Court therefore determined the payment?The compensation for the mother child is 300,000 baht for funeral expenses and 300,000 baht for lack of support. The interest rate shall be in accordance with the new law, under the Civil Code.Section 224 consists of Section 7.
Summarize the Supreme Court judgment in simple folk language by
U.S.Mongkol Krittithaya Weapon
Those who regularly feed stray dogs in the area where they live or pass through the area, don't forget to take a picture of them in advance. If a stray dog bites you or your relatives, they will report the case and claim damages.