Sarkis v Morrison

In *Sarkis v Morrison*, the plaintiff was injured when the defendant's dog ran onto the road and collided with the plaintiff's motorcycle. The plaintiff did not allege that the dog attacked him. The dispute concerned whether the owner of the dog was strictly liable to the plaintiff for the injuries sustained.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was the interpretation of section 25 of the *Companion Animals Act 1998* (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the phrase "bodily injury to a person caused by the dog wounding or attacking that person" imposed strict liability only where the dog actually wounded or attacked the person, or if it encompassed other forms of injury caused by the dog's actions. The court also considered whether the terms "wounding" and "attacking" were disjunctive and whether "wounding" required aggression from the dog.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the wording of section 25, particularly the phrase "wounding or attacking that person," indicated that liability was confined to situations where the dog directly inflicted injury through wounding or attacking. The court noted that exceptions to liability under the Act also presupposed an "attack by a dog." Applying this interpretation, the court found that the plaintiff's injury, caused by a collision with the dog rather than a direct attack or wounding by the dog, did not fall within the scope of section 25.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the District Court was set aside, and judgment was entered for the defendant. The defendant was awarded costs in both the District Court and the Court of Appeal.