A recent landmark judgement by the High Court in Suva has set a precedent on dog owners in Fiji to confine their pets and not to permit them to run loose.

High Court Puisne Judge Chaitanya Lakshman has ordered a couple residing on Bureta St to pay $236,000 to the family of a man who was attacked by a dog. The attack resulted in the man falling on the road that resulted in his death in 2020.

The civil claim was initiated by Sushila Wati on behalf of her deceased husband Chandrika Prasad.

ON August 9, 2020 at about 7.15pm, Chandrika Prasad was walking along Levuka St, off Bureta St, Samabula, Suva when a dog owned by Doctor Ami Chandra and Rita Kiran Chandra exited the property, attacked and startled Chandrika Prasad causing him to fall over, inflicting severe injuries to his head. Mr Prasad was hospitalised at CWM Hospital.

On August 16, 2020, he was airlifted to Liverpool Hospital in Sydney and passed away in Minto, New South Wales, Australia on October 18, 2020.

Puisne Judge Chaitanya Lakshman on January 31, 2025, delivered a ruling based on his findings of law under the Dogs Act 1968 and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions Act (Death and Interest) Act 1935.

The Dog Act states is it an offence under the Dog’s Act 1968 for the owner to permit a dog to be at large which he/she knows to be dangerous or to have injured any person without being properly muzzled. The law further states it is an offence under the Dog’s Act 1968 if a dog on any street or public road or public pathway rushes or attacks any person whereby the person is injured.

Questions raised by the court

Puisne Judge Chaitanya Lakshman raised the following questions before making a determination. The questions were:

1. Did the defendants (Dr Chandra and Mrs Chandra) muzzle the dog on August 9, 2020, just prior to the attack/startling of Chandrika Prasad? Is so, was it a failure clear violation of Dogs Act 1968?

2. Did the defendants owe a duty to Chandrika Prasad, to properly restrain and/or confine the dog?

3. Did the defendants have knowledge, actual and/or constructive, of the vicious propensity of the dog and failed to remedy the same, thereby causing the ensuing incident?

4. Did the defendants (having control of the dog that is responsible for the aforesaid incident) owed a duty to the deceased to keep him safe from dangerous conditions by properly constraining ad/or confining the dangerous and vicious dog, and not permitting the dog to run loose on any street or public road or public pathway rushes?

5. Did the defendants breach the duty owed to Chandrika Prasad by failing to properly restrain and/or confine the dog and permit the dog to run loose contrary to the Dogs Act 1968?

6. Did Chandrika Prasad as a direct and proximate result of the incident, which was caused by the negligence of the defendants suffer severe pain and permanent injuries to his head? Did he sustain severe and protracted shock to his nervous system? Did it all cause him great pain, suffering and mental anguish and eventually led to his death on October 18, 2020?

CCTV FOOTAGE EVIDENCE

Puisne Judge Latchman examined a CCTV footage that was tendered as evidence.

“I note after a short while two people walking. One is holding a torch. One person is in front of the other. The one at the back is a step behind the person in front. As they are about to reach the gate the gate opens. A dog runs out of the gate. The dog stops and lurches toward the people near the gate. Both of them step backwards. The one at the back falls. The dog after lurching towards them runs in the opposite direction. A person from inside the gate then goes out to where the person fell,” states the judge.

Witness Vijay Prasad informed the court that on August 9, 2020 at around 7 to 7.30pm Chandrika Prasad picked him up. They got off at the roundabout and were walking towards the temple. They were walking along Levuka St. Someone opened a remote-controlled gate. A big dog came out. Vijay Prasad then said that he shouted loudly. Chandrika was with him. Vijay was holding a pen torch. It was bit dark. As the dog came towards them Vijay shouted. Chandrika dropped.

“The evidence of Mr. Vijay Prasad is similar that what I noted from the CCTV footage. Vijay’s evidence provided me the details. The details that he provided me was that the two men who were approaching in the footage were Vijay and Chandrika. That Vijay held the torch. Chandrika was behind Vijay. That it was Chandrika who fell. Chandrika fell after the dog exited the gate and went towards Vijay and Chandrika,” said the judge.

“Having seen the footage and noting the evidence of Vijay I have no doubt in my mind that the cause of Chandrika falling to the ground was the sudden accosting by the dog. The exiting of the dog, the dog starling Chandrika Prasad and Chandrika Prasad falling are all sequential.”

DETERMINATION BY COURT

Puisne Judge Lakshman found Dr Chandra and Mrs Chandra owed a duty to Chandrika Prasad to keep him safe from dangerous conditions by properly constraining and confining the dangerous and vicious dog and not permitting the dog to run loose on any street or public road or public pathway.

“The defendants breached the duty owed to Chandrika Prasad by failing to properly restrain and/or confine their dog and permit the dog to run loose contrary to the Dogs Act 1968,” said the Judge.

Mr. Chandrika Prasad passed away on October 18, 2020. His death certificate reveals that his cause of death is traumatic brain injury.

“The evidence before me is that Chandrika Prasad as a direct and proximate result of the incident which was caused by the negligence of the defendants suffered severe pain and permanent injuries to his head. He sustained severe and protracted shock to his nervous system. It all caused him great pain, suffering and mental anguish and eventually led to his death on 18th October 2020,” said the judge.

“Mr. Chandrika Prasad was 76 years old at the time of his death. He was married and had 4 children. There is no evidence before me of any illness or him having any other medical condition. Mr. Prasad was injured on 9th August 2020. He passed away on 18th October 2020. That is 71 days. Mr. Prasad’s medical history is before me. I note the injuries, the diagnosis, the treatment, care provided and the cause of death,” said Justice Lakshman.

THE AWARD

Puisne Judge Latchman made the following award to Sushila Wati, wife of deceased Chandrika Prasad.

1. The defendants (Dr Ami Chandra and Mrs Chandra are to pay the plaintiff (Sushila Wati) a total sum of AUD $100,745 (FJD $146,000) for Mr. Chandrika Prasad’s evacuation and funeral costs;

2. The defendants are to pay the plaintiff, FJD $20,000 as damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions Act (Death and Interest) Act 1935;

3. The defendants are to pay the plaintiff, FJD$20,000 as damages under Compensation to Relatives Act 1920; and

4. The defendants are to pay the plaintiff, FJD $50,000.00 as general damages for pain and suffering.

Puisne Judge Chaitanya Lakshman also ordered a pre and post judgment interest on the sum awarded pursuant to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Death and Interest) Act 1935. A pre-judgment interest of 6 per cent per annum from August 10, 2020 to date of judgement and a post judgment interest of 4 per cent per annum from the date of judgment to date of full payment. Doctor Ami Chandra and Mrs Chandra were also ordered to pay $5000 in court costs to Sushila Chandra.