In order to rescue stray animals, Ms. Wang captured three stray cats by trapping and locked them in a cat cage, placing them next to the garbage bin in the community. After receiving feedback from the owner, the property staff rushed to the scene and were scratched by the cat while carrying the cat cage with their bare hands. After hearing this case, the Yanqing District People's Court of Beijing found that both parties were at fault. The property management party did not take any protective measures and dragged the cat cage by hand, which put themselves in a dangerous situation and had gross negligence. They should bear 80% of the fault responsibility themselves. The court found that Ms. Wang has several kittens at home and pays close attention to the adoption status of stray cats. In May of this year, in order to rescue stray cats and participate in related adoption activities, Ms. Wang locked one female cat and two kittens in a cat cage next to the garbage bin in her residential area, and continued to use the trapping cage to prepare for trapping other kittens. However, due to previous incidents of cats scratching young children in the community, some residents who were concerned about their personal safety reported the situation to Mr. Li, the property management personnel of the community. After arriving at the scene, Mr. Li verbally stopped Ms. Wang from capturing the stray cat. Ms. Wang explained the purpose of her rescue and stated that the trapping cage is a commonly used tool for dealing with stray cat problems and has the characteristics of safety, efficiency, and humanity. But Mr. Li ignored it and went straight to pick up the cat cage with his bare hands. During the process of dragging the cage, he was scratched by a stray cat under stress. Afterwards, Mr. Li went to the hospital multiple times for treatment and received rabies vaccine, spending more than 2000 yuan on medical expenses. Mr. Li believes that this expense should be borne by Ms. Wang, so he sued her to the court. Ms. Wang also felt wronged about this, stating that she was rescuing stray animals and that the cat that scratched Mr. Li was a stray cat. She is not the cat owner, so she should not be compensated. Moreover, Mr. Li intentionally treated the stray cat violently at the time, which led to the injury, and should bear the losses on his own. After the trial in Yanqing Court, it was found that Mr. Li, as a property management personnel, should have had a higher duty of care towards the aggressiveness of stray cats. After the incident of a kitten scratching a child in the early stage of the community, Mr. Li did not take any protective measures and dragged the cat cage alone with his bare hands, resulting in the stray cat scratching him after being frightened. He voluntarily put himself in a dangerous situation and the handling methods were obviously inappropriate. He should bear the main responsibility for his own injury. The court determined that his responsibility ratio was 80%. Regarding Ms. Wang's behavior, the court believes that she caught three stray cats by trapping them and achieved direct control and exclusive control over them by putting them in a cat cage. At this point, she already belongs to the animal manager. As a stray cat manager, Ms. Wang should have placed the stray cat in non-public places or taken effective measures to clearly alert Mr. Li of safety risks and stop his improper behavior. However, Ms. Wang did not fulfill her management obligations and should be responsible for 20% of the incident. The verdict has now come into effect. Through post judgment Q&A, Ms. Wang has voluntarily fulfilled her compensation obligation. Judge Liu Manyi of the Yanqing Court's case filing court stated that according to Article 1245 of the Civil Code, if the animal being raised causes harm to others, the animal owner or manager shall bear the liability for infringement; However, if it can be proven that the damage was caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the infringed party, the liability may be waived or reduced. Liu Manyi explained that the liability for infringement caused by raising animals under this provision belongs to one of the situations of assuming no fault liability stipulated in the Civil Code. If the infringed party intentionally damages themselves or steals animals, they shall bear the responsibility themselves. When the infringed party is at fault, the liability of the infringer shall not be reduced for general negligence, but the liability of the infringer may be reduced for gross negligence. In this case, considering Mr. Li's significant negligence in handling the matter improperly, Ms. Wang's liability for compensation should be reduced. In recent years, with the continuous increase in the number of stray animals, infringement incidents caused by stray animals have also occurred frequently Regarding the verdict of this case, Chen Liming, an associate professor at the Law School of Beijing Jiaotong University, believes that the application of the principle of no fault liability strictly limits the grounds for exemption from liability, increases the degree of responsibility for breeders and managers, and is conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the infringed parties. Chen Liming reminds that the common practice of feeding stray animals in daily life does not necessarily constitute a legal keeper or manager. To determine whether a person is liable for compensation, it is necessary to comprehensively determine whether they have achieved exclusive control and control over the animals. Chen Liming believes that stray animals play complex and multifaceted roles in ecosystems. Proper management and treatment of stray animals not only reflect social civilization and public morality, but also contribute to building a more harmonious social environment. The public should raise awareness of the safety hazards that stray animals may bring, avoid conflicts with them, and caring individuals should also raise their awareness of regulations, try to carry out arrest operations through professional institutions such as rescue centers, and provide a warm home for "cats" and "dogs" in a more scientific way. For pets kept by individuals, Liu Manyi reminds that according to Article 1247 of the Civil Code, if dangerous animals such as vicious dogs that are prohibited from being kept cause harm to others, the animal owner or manager shall bear tort liability. For example, the dog management regulations in a certain city prohibit the breeding of Tibetan Mastiffs. If a breeder violates this regulation by breeding a Tibetan Mastiff and bites someone, regardless of the management measures taken by the breeder or whether the victim has engaged in behavior such as teasing the Tibetan Mastiff, the breeder should bear the liability for compensation. (New Society)