Does the 3rd party liability apply only for sitters and not owners? Our sitters were supposed to keep our dog at home or on leash at all times. They were instructed to keep him away from small animals and dogs. They took him to a park and the dog was off leash and attacked a small 14 year old dog. Not only were we out of the country, we received a summons to go to court and a citation for an aggressive animal. They were cited for having a dog off leash. The small dog needed surgery and the vet bills are over $5000. Has anyone had this experience?
I can’t give any advice as this is Legal/Insurance territory so THS Support needs to be your main port of call. I’m assuming you’ve opened a Member Dispute officially? THS will then investigate. It’s worth doing.
I’m so sorry this occurred, how awful for everyone concerned plus the animals of course. Truly shocking, and all because clear instructions were not followed. However a dog that’s got such attack tendencies I personally believe needs to be muzzled in public, so muzzle training for the future might be an idea to reduce the risk of a similar occurrence as accidents do happen it’s easy enough to trip over yourself and let go of a leash. I truly am sorry for your situation.
Hi @ajshepar
Just confirming that speaking directly to Membership Services is your best option for this situation. Thanks @BonnyinBrighton for popping on to confirm!
I’ll pop you a DM very soon with regards to this.
Jenny
I am sorry for your experience. I would consult an attorney, or in the US many courts have legal aides to assist with filing a small claims case. Dog walkers usually carry some liability for animals in their care (which is why professional pet sitters have insurance), you can probably recover vet bills for the other dog.
I don’t know what the THS insurance covers. The liability portion of your HO policy may also provide some coverage.
Please be sure to save any documentation, welcome guide, text message, chat, etc, you may have instructing the sitter to keep the dog on leash.
And sadly, not only do you have to deal with this, but you will likely be removed from the THS platform:
“5.2.4. ensure that no pets to be left under the care of a Sitter have ever caused a person or animal any physical harm (no matter how minor the injury);”
“5.2.11. not have any inherently dangerous pets ….. or any animal with a history of attacks on pets or people
Given what happened, I don’t think they’d trust other THS sitters anyways.
If instructions were clear and written down, I imagine the sitters will be held responsible. Very irresponsible of them.
@ajshepar, we have never heard of such an occurrence so can only but guess situation is rare. That an off-leash dog, even if without permission, caused another pet to have surgery seems situation with multiple factors and perhaps two sides. Not excusing any actions as facts may be incomplete. Hope that you manage to resolve the situation.
As @alegría rightly noted, the incident would appear to invalidate your ability to create future THS listings - if you so wished.
Re third party insurance, you raise an excellent point. It appears - on THS pricing page - that the premium THS membership for Sitter and Combined includes third party insurance but not for Pet Parent. Not realized this. Hopefully you have some form of alternative coverage.
Also, the sitters were cited for having a pet off leash. I think that alone establishes that the sitters are the responsible party and not the dog owner.
If the dog was off leash in an area not allowed (and presumably so if they were cited) then that does increase their liability towards the victim dog’s vet bills.
If it were me I would file through my insurance and let them collect from / sue the sitters. Assuming they are all in the same country. If they sitters were from overseas then no hope collecting from them, unless they do so voluntarily.
@ajshepar the sitter should have followed the instructions. However, I don’t feel this is 100% on the sitter. You as the pet owner don’t seem surprised or concerned that your dog injured another animal. Sitters can only assume that hosts are following the terms and conditions and are completely honest about their pet’s behaviors. Aggressive animals are not allowed on THS. So, I’m wondering how transparent you were about the pet behavior. Most dogs are not going to attack other animals so that’s not something that the sitter should have known to expect. Did you let the sitter know that the dog was aggressive and likely to attack? Keep in mind that people who sit through THS are not paid pet care professionals. We are participating in an unpaid mutual exchange.
I’m not absolving the sitter of any responsibility, but I feel like the HO has responsibility here too.
According to the OP, the sitters were instructed to keep the dog away from other animals. I know plenty of dogs that are very sweet, but aggressive towards other animals. Plus, the sitters were cited for having the dog off leesh, so that’s on them not the HO.
If you know cats, they tend not to like other cats and will hunt. Any outdoor cat is likely to violate THS’s terms and conditions. So, only indoor cats should be allowable on THS? I’d be ok with that.
Presumably you were aware your dog is aggressive towards small animals and dogs, when you placed the listing (hence these stipulations)? Did you make these aggression issues known to the sitters, beyond any doubt? If so, they should have notified THS and had your listing removed from the platform. Sorry, but it’s absolutely against the T&Cs. I should think that any 3rd party liability would be out the window, since you’ve already breached a very major T&C.
Oh come on. A dog or cat acting aggressive towards other animals is not a violation. It doesn’t mean the animal has attacked or injured other animals. It means you must be cautious. Like don’t let the animal off leesh!
I mean, they violated dog care 101 - don’t let it off leesh because you don’t know how it may react to people and animals, and you don’t know if it will respond to your commands. Seems like everyone is trying to protect the sitter. They screwed up.
As I said earlier, any outdoor cats would be a violation, but people like to pick and choose what’s an acceptable violation.
100% agree with you.
The request was to keep the dog on the leash, simple. Follow instructions.
This should be all on the sitter.
I think THS has this cover by their “cover” I mean its on a goodwill basis. So it’s not guaranteed
"For extra peace of mind, if a pet causes damage or injury to another person, their property, or pets whilst under your control during a sit, and this is due to negligence on your part, you’ll be covered up to $1,000,000 per incident.
Terms and conditions apply"
I owned two German Shepherd’s adored people, really loved kids, did not like other dogs, we always kept them on leash when out walking. When joining THS took standard membership which covers dogs in your care. The owners said don’t let them off leash. I really feel sitters are responsible. Duty of care was not adhered to.
I’m not trying to absolve the sitters. They plainly disregarded an explicit instruction, let the dog off lead and were cited for doing so. That was irresponsible and may potentially make them legally liable for some or all of the resulting loss.
But that’s not the reason given by the OP. My point concerns what came before that. Why had the pet parent specifically instructed the sitters to keep this particular dog away from all dogs and small animals? That is considerably more specific than the ordinary precaution of keeping an unfamiliar dog on a lead. It strongly suggests that the pet parent already knew the dog had aggressive tendencies or presented a particular risk towards them.
The question is surely whether those instructions resulted from previous aggression, physical harm or an earlier attack. If they did, the dog should not have been listed on THS. The terms require pet parents to ensure that a pet has never caused a person or animal physical harm, however minor, and prohibit animals with a history of attacks on people or pets.
I also don’t think the comparison with an outdoor cat’s natural hunting instinct is like-for-like. One is a general instinct associated with a species; the other concerns specific warnings about the known behaviour of a particular dog. The fact that the pet parent felt it necessary to prohibit any contact with both dogs and small animals is directly relevant. Those restrictions were presumably imposed for a reason.
The sitter’s negligence didn’t create whatever pre-existing behaviour caused the owner to give those warnings; it exposed the risk. Had the dog already harmed or attacked another animal, and had the pet parent complied with THS’s terms by not listing it, this incident could not have arisen through this THS sit. If there had never been any previous harm or attack, the owner could clarify that, but the very specific restrictions reasonably invites the question, IMHO. If this had been related to us - we’re sitters - before confirming a sit, we’d certainly have asked more questions.
Regarding the original liability question, my own reading is that THS’s Accident and Third Party Liability Plan applies to eligible Standard or Premium sitter members, rather than to pet-parent memberships. THS says a sitter could be covered for up to $1 million where a pet injures another person, their property or their pet while under the sitter’s care and this results from the sitter’s negligence. On the face of it, this appears to be the type of incident that the sitter should report to THS immediately.
However, that’s only my personal opinion and interpretation of the published information. I understand the cover is discretionary and subject to its full terms and conditions, so both its availability and the proper claims procedure would need to be confirmed directly with THS. I suspect the sitter’s lead citation also does not, by itself, determine civil liability or necessarily release the dog’s owner from responsibility in this situation. As per my previous comments, if the dog had a previous history which should have prevented it from being listed, that may also be potentially relevant to THS’s consideration of any claim.
It seems the sitters may have been seriously negligent, but the pet parent’s prior knowledge, disclosure and compliance with THS’s terms may also be highly relevant. Pointing that out isn’t “protecting the sitter”.
@ajshepar , welcome to the forum.
I am sorry this has happened, it’s a hard situation for everyone involved, especially the other dog, and their owners.
There isn’t much information in your original post, so I am not going to speculate about your dog previous history and it’s clear the sitter acted most irresponsibly taking the dog out and letting him off the leash .
It would be really helpful if you could report back to the forum about THS response. It seems that the sitter’s “cover” should apply here, as @HouseSittersGuide mentioned, but it not being the typical insurance, it’s difficult to know how it will develop.
@Jenny, if you could get any further information that could enlighten forum members, we would really appreciate it.
I hear you, but there are some dog breeds in which there nature is not liming other dogs. For that reason, you know not to let them around other dogs or animals. Doesn’t mean they are dangerous, unless you do something you shouldn’t like let them off lead where in especially in a prohibited area.
As for cats, the t&c is clear about pets attacking and/or injuring other animals. The potential for an outdoor cat to injure another animal, or fight with another cat, is pretty high.
Anyway, we do treat dogs differently for good reason. So to prevent these kinds of issues, maybe aggressive breeds need to be banned. The small dogs are especially aggressive towards other dogs.
Link to Accident & 3rd Party Liability Plan Terms and Conditions: Accident & 3rd party liability plan terms | TrustedHousesitters.com
(‘This Plan is offered at our sole discretion and only to Sitters who have an active standard or premium membership and have agreed and confirmed a Sit on the TrustedHousesitters Platform, with a start date within their paid membership term.’)