Memorial Wording Fora Wedding Programs

E 'responsible for injury or those who bring Fido for a walk and not just the owner.

Supreme Court, The Supreme Court ruling n.8875/2011
has determined that the obligation to care of animals rises every time a person has a certain relation of possession or mere relationship with the animal. According to the 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, in this case, stated that "there is also the responsibility of the accused - (mere animal holder) - in that, in terms custody of animal, the obligation arises whenever there is a relation of possession or mere possession of the animal and a particular person, since the 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 also to be understood as holding only material fact, it is not necessary that there be a relation of ownership in civil law sense " .