The case of a child of two years who died after a dog has bitten in the neck ignited the debate about the responsibility of the owners with their pets and who has the responsibility in the demise of the small.
Mariela Janette Martinez, 32, and Paul Daniel Rivarola, located in Villa Elisa and Ñemby, parents of Benjamin Daniel Rivarola Martinez, of two years, visited the family of Faustino Noguera Ojeda, of 79 years, the last Sunday in Caapucú. Martinez and Riveros had never been to that place, but they did invited by a neighbor and taking advantage of the walk within a holiday long.
Read more: Investigate death of boy bitten by a dog
All were sharing in the courtyard of the lord Ojeda when he unleashed a ferocious storm –which, by the way, struck most of the country– and decided to take refuge in a small shed. Once installed in that location, the family dog, named Tony, was bitten by the small Benjamin in the neck after this he touched the muzzle. The baby bled the way to the Hospital of Quiindy.
The fact came on the Monday morning, and doubts arose as to the responsibility over the animal and what might be the consequences for legal owners. The case came to the prosecutor’s office of the area and fell into the hands of the agent Cesar Garay.
Having spent the first five days of the fact, the prosecutor Garay spoke with all the people who were in the house: the father, the neighbor, the owner of the house and your partner. With the mother of the deceased still could not talk, because that is shocked by what happened. After listening to the people, the officer indicated that it “cannot be explained” how you could neglect to the baby. He added that at least “there was a negligence” of those involved.
The amendment of article 38 of the Law 4840/13 of “Protection and Animal Welfare”, enacted by the Executive at the end of September of this year, punishable by up to five years in jail the owner of the animal that they killed. Textually, the article states: “Every owner, possessor or keeper of an animal shall be liable, civilly, objectively, of the damages which are caused by the action of the animal. This responsibility extends even to the devastation caused by the animal if it was in the possession, ownership or under the care of any third party at the time of caused the damage, responding jointly and severally liable with the damages caused, without prejudice to the right to repeat against who has arrived with his guilt or intent. In the event that such action proves to be dead a person, the owner of the animal shall be punished with a prison sentence of up to five years and the prohibition of purchasing or possessing other animals in a definitive way”.
Garay agrees that owners are responsible for the dog, but there is a problem: one of them is 79 years and his partner’s, 60’s, and they have a special treatment at the time of carrying forward the judicial process. The prosecutor said that studies are attributed to both of them for wrongful death, which has a maximum sentence of five years. In this case, do not apply the remand and would have a different treatment for being elderly.
The prosecutor also emphasized the delay in the transfer of the child from Caapucú to Quiindy, a journey of at least 20 kilometers. This could have an impact on the medical condition of the child.
Obviously, this case is one exception in which there is no intention, but yes a liability that no one wants to take. As for the dog, he was taken to the police station of Caapucú, and yesterday was rescued by the humane Society, headed by Francesca Crosa.