Speaker 1 (00:01):
It goes without saying we love our dogs. We take them for walks to the dog park, out to coffee, shopping at Bunnings, to the pub when we catch up with mates. They’re allowed on CityCats, you know that? And on planes — Virgin has extended their trial of letting dogs in the cabins. But who pays when one of those furry friends bites you or knocks you over? Peter Carter is director of Carter Capner Law. This is a serious issue, Peter. Tell me about the case of Lockhart versus Bartholomare and Anoa.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
Thank you, Ellen. I’d love to tell you about that case. It involved a gentleman walking his cavoodle when suddenly a much larger dog from a neighbouring house bolted out of the gate and bowled him over. He suffered quite serious injuries — particularly significant for a 73-year-old. His activity dropped off dramatically and he required a lot of care. Those are essentially the facts of the case.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
So the dog, from my notes, was Jager — about 30 to 35 kilograms — a three-year-old Labrador. Not a lot of self-control there. The man stumbled, fell, and was injured. What did he want in remedy?

Speaker 2 (01:28):
He wanted compensation for the care he needed to pay for and for his relatively significant injuries. It was, in many ways, a routine personal injury compensation case — except that it was caused by a dog and complicated by some difficult and idiosyncratic rules around liability for animals.

Speaker 1 (01:52):
The damages he sought were over $105,000, which sounds extreme until you go through the list of injuries. Have you got those?

Speaker 2 (02:05):
I do. The court assessed that he would have been entitled to those damages had liability been established. He suffered a displaced tibial fracture to his right leg, damage to the peroneal nerve resulting in foot drop, a significant deterioration in pre-existing osteoarthritis, and he developed depression and anxiety because he was no longer able to move around as he previously could as an active 73-year-old.

Speaker 1 (02:43):
The foot drop never fully resolved. He struggled to walk distances, struggled with household chores, gardening, pool maintenance — it really impacted his independence and daily routine. The court said, essentially, “If liability is found, that’s worth about $105,000.” So what was the response from the dog’s owners?

Speaker 2 (03:14):
Presumably it was their household insurer who defended the claim, as this is the kind of public liability normally covered by home insurance. The insurer’s response was that the “highway rule” applied.

Speaker 1 (03:47):
This is extraordinary legal creativity. They relied on an ancient rule designed to protect cattle owners centuries ago if livestock strayed onto highways — now applied to a suburban Labrador?

Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yes — centuries old, from England, not Australia. The rule still technically exists in Queensland, although it’s been abolished everywhere else. The court ruled that the highway rule only protects against damage caused on the roadway itself — not on the verge or footpath, which is where this incident occurred.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
So they were liable?

Speaker 2 (04:55):
No — while the highway rule didn’t protect them, the claimant failed at the next hurdle. In dog injury cases, you must prove that the dog had a known propensity to do the act complained of — and that the owners knew about it.

Speaker 1 (05:25):
So you must prove the dog had a known tendency to bolt or behave dangerously — and that the owner knew about it?

Speaker 2 (06:01):
That’s correct. The claimant proved the dog was excitable and unruly, but fell just short of proving that it had a known propensity to escape the property — and that the owners were aware of that risk. You may have heard the saying, “Every dog gets one free bite.” It’s the same principle.

Speaker 1 (06:51):
So poor Harold Lockhart, 73, walking his cavoodle on the Sunshine Coast in 2021, suffers life-changing injuries but ultimately loses because he couldn’t prove that last element. So who can you sue if a dog knocks you over at a café, a park, or in a body corporate area?

Speaker 2 (07:36):
You can sue the owner or the person controlling the dog — but only if you can prove they knew of the dog’s inclination to do what caused your injury. And practically speaking, you also need the owner to be insured. It’s very difficult to pursue an uninsured defendant.

Speaker 1 (08:06):
So the dog must be insured, and you must prove it was a known menace — not just a boisterous animal. Fascinating stuff. Peter Carter, director of Carter Capner Law. The highway rule — I love that.