Kildare County Council is being sued by a girl who claims she suffered injuries when she was suddenly attacked by a Belgian Shepherd dog during a playdate at a local authority house eight years ago.
The High Court Deputy Master on Wednesday heard that the girl, who was five at the time, has been left with nasty scarring on her right inner thigh as a result of the alleged attack at Cois Na Feadain, Naas.
The dog, which was owned by the local authority tenants, without warning attacked and bit the girl when while she was visiting, it is claimed. The council has denied all the claims and contends it did not owe any duty of care to the girl in respect of dog attacks on the premises.
In an affidavit to the court, the girl’s solicitor, Liam Moloney, said his client sustained a severe laceration to the inside of her right thigh and has been left with permanent, noticeable and nasty scarring. His side sought discovery of documents from the council including the tenancy agreement on the house and rules concerning keeping dogs in local authority housing.
Wake up, people: Here’s what the mainstream media don’t want you to know about Christmas
Chasing the Light review: This agreeable Irish documentary is all peace and healing. Then something disturbing happens
Are Loughmore-Castleiney and Slaughtneil what all GAA clubs should strive to be?
Your work questions answered: Can bonuses be deducted pro-rata during a maternity leave?
Patrycja Cisowski (13), of Radharc an Caislean, Naas, Co Kildare, has through her father, Robert Cisowski, sued the owners of the dog, Dylan and Brendan Doran and Bernadette Dawson, all of Cois na Feadain, Naas, as a result of the alleged incident on March 24th, 2015. The council has also been sued.
Judgment granted
Deputy Master John Glennon was told that judgment has already been granted in default of appearance against the three dog owners.
In the proceedings, it is claimed there was a failure to adequately secure the premises to ensure the dog was not free to go about. There was an alleged failure to maintain the dog under effectual control or under the control of another responsible person at all times.
It is further claimed a guard dog was allowed to be on the premises in an alleged breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement with the council. It is also claimed there was a failure to control the dog when they knew or ought to have known that it had an alleged mischievous propensity.
In its full defence of the proceedings, the council has contended the claim is misconceived. It contends no cause of action can be maintained and, as a housing authority, it does not owe any duty of care to the girl for dog attacks at the premises let to the tenants.
The Deputy Master granted five categories of discovery to the Cisowski side and gave the council 10 weeks to produce the documents.