Survey in the process of dog attack in Bruck a.d. Leitha

Von WOM

A tragic incident in Bruck an der Leitha, which made headlines in July 2023, now ends with an acquittal. A 52-year-old woman was fatally injured in an attack by a Rottweiler, and two children suffered injuries. The case led to a judicial discussion in which the daughter of the dog owner was charged with negligent killing and negligent bodily harm.

The incident occurred on July 26, when the then 20-year-old had the supervision of the Rottweiler. According to the public prosecutor, she would not have secured the dog in time with a bite basket and a leash, which means that he could escape from the garden. The racing dog attacked a woman and her two grandchildren, which led to a dramatic and consequent incident. The 52-year-old and a two-year-old boy had to be flown to the hospital by helicopter. The older child, a seven -year -old girl, was also taken to the hospital. The grandmother died on October 6th due to multi -organ failure, whereby the bite injuries were determined as the cause of their death.

court ruling and justification

The district court Bruck an der Leitha decided in its judgment that the accused cannot be held responsible for deaths and injuries. The judge found that even if the woman had taken immediate measures to lease the dog, it would not have been possible to ensure this. According to explanations, the garden gate, through which the dog escaped, was blocked, and the Rottweiler had squeezed underneath with a 13 centimeter gap.

This decision has already led to intensive discussions and raises questions about the responsibility of animal owners and the security of dealing with dogs. Laws and regulations on the protection of the public against aggressive dogs are an important social issue that not only plays a central role in legal contexts, but also in social debates.

The judgment is not yet final, which means that there may be further legal steps. The outcome of this process could have far -reaching effects on future similar cases, since it intervenes in a discussion about the civil law responsibility of veterinary owners.

For more information about this case and the associated legal questions, you can read