Andorra Court Hears Dog Bite Negligence Case Between Encamp Neighbours

The Corts Court in Andorra heard arguments on Thursday in a case pitting two Encamp neighbours against each other: the owner of two German Shepherds accused of minor injuries due to serious negligence, and the woman bitten by one of the dogs in 2020.

The incident occurred when the victim, walking in Encamp and texting on her phone, was bitten on her right elbow by one of the dogs. She required 15 days of treatment and sick leave, later leaving her job at a local nursery school due to ongoing pain and fear of accidents with children. She described suffering daily discomfort and developing a phobia of dogs, forcing her to cross the street upon seeing any. Crucially, she testified that neither dog was leashed, with the owner holding them only by their collars.

The defendant insisted both dogs were on leashes during the walk in the built-up area. He recounted being startled by a shadow around a corner, after which one animal—a young, sociable dog with no prior incidents—bit the woman. He immediately secured the dogs in cages in his Jeep, then attended to her, offering to cover all costs. They went to Encamp's dispensary with two passing police officers, and he followed them to hospital, visiting frequently for three months to check on her progress. Their relationship had been cordial—he often used her husband's garage—and no demands were made at the time. The dogs, both now deceased (one from illness, the other old age), were fully vaccinated, he added. He had no dog insurance, believing it unnecessary for the breed and covered by his home policy.

A year and a half later, the victim filed a complaint after receiving no financial compensation, prompting a lawyer's letter labelling the owner "unlocatable"—a claim he denied. She accused him of negligence and passivity, noting he only noticed the bite after seeing her pain and collapse.

Two witnesses supported the owner, stating the dogs were leashed, but the victim's lawyer dismissed their accounts as rehearsed.

The prosecution seeks acquittal, citing insufficient evidence of serious negligence. The victim's counsel demands one month of conditional arrest and €2,000 in damages, criticising the owner's "obstructionist" stance and lack of pet insurance, which they deem mandatory. The defence also requests acquittal, arguing the victim's memory is distorted and no duty was breached.

The court will rule on responsibility, including whether the dogs were controlled and the owner's offers were genuine.