Ruff justice: Terrier cleared of criminal damage in Limerick Court case

A JUDGE had to decide if man’s best friend was an engine’s worst enemy, in Kilmallock Court.

Spinach, a brown and white terrier, was accused of climbing into the engine of a van and chewing wiring and pipes. The damage caused was €3,270 plus €1,000 to pay for a replacement van while it was being repaired.

Joe McAuliffe, of Meenoline, Templeglantine took a civil court case against John and Bridget Clifford, of Bulgaden for the sum of €4,270.

James Dennison, solicitor for Mr McAuliffe, said both sides accepted damage was caused. The question is what caused the damage, he outlined to Judge Marian O’Leary.

Mr Dennison pinned the blame on the Cliffords’ terrier, Spinach. He said there were photos of dog hair in the engine. 

This was denied by the Cliffords’ barrister Sandra Barnwell. She said Spinach must have done “a series of gymnastics to climb up through the engine, sit on top of it and chew away”.

The first witness was Mr McAuliffe who is a window fitter. On May 17, 2016, he said he carried out works for the Cliffords.

“Four hours later I tidied up and started the Renault Master commercial van. It wouldn’t start. I opened the bonnet. Pipes and wires were eaten. They had been chewed,” said Mr McAuliffe.

Mr Dennison asked if there were any animals in the vicinity of the van.

“Yes, there was a brown and white dog. Its kennel was 10/12 feet from the front of the van,” said Mr McAuliffe. Photographs he took of the engine were handed to the judge.

Mr Dennison asked Mr McAuliffe what is on the green box in the photo?

“Dog hair,” said Mr McAuliffe.

“What colour?” asked Mr Dennison.

“Brown,” said Mr McAuliffe.

Kilmallock Court heard that the same motor assessor was hired by the plaintiff and respondents to do a report. Judge O’Leary asked why the engineer allowed this to happen,

Ms Barnwell said she would give the engineer the “benefit of the doubt”.

Mr Dennison said he wanted to hand in the report but “it is objected to by my counterpart”.

Ms Barnwell said: “I am not calling my engineer.”

Mr McAuliffe continued giving his evidence. He said Mr and Mrs Clifford both “apologised” after having “a look at the van”.

“I had to wait for a recovery truck. It was taken to Deerpark Motors in Charleville,” said Mr McAuliffe.

Mr Dennison asked if there was room for a dog to get in to his van’s engine?

“There is lots of room to get inside. Not for a big animal but there is for a small animal,” said Mr McAuliffe.

Mr Dennison said damages from the diesel pipes and wires being chewed were agreed between the parties. The court heard €3,270 for the repairs and €1,000 for a replacement van.

The Cliffords’ barrister, Ms Barnwell, began her cross examination of the witness. 

“Spinach must have done a series of gymnastics to climb up through the engine, sit on top of it and chew away,” said Ms Barnwell.

“There is a massive room to do it. The bonnet is recessed up,” said Mr McAuliffe, who invited those in the court to inspect his van parked outside. 

Ms Barnwell asked if the damage could have been caused by rats.

“No. There was a chunk of dog hair,” said Mr McAuliffe.

Ms Barnwell said Mr Clifford will say he didn’t see any hair.

Mr Clifford took the stand and said he did see wires and pipes “broke”.

Mr Dennison asked him about the green box.

“The claimant says the fluff is dog hair,” said Mr Dennison.

“I didn’t notice any dog hair,” said Mr Clifford. 

Mr Dennison asked Mr Clifford why he apologised to his client.

“He was making a scene. He had no way of going home,” said Mr Clifford.

Mr Dennison asked what he thought caused the damage?

“I don’t know. Spinach is a hunter terrier. She would be growling. I was there the whole time. I heard nothing. There is nothing to say it was the terrier,” said Mr Clifford.

“Any problems before with the dog chewing things?” asked Mr Dennison. “No,” said Mr Clifford.

The solicitor asked if it is a hunter terrier’s nature to dig and tear to get at their quarry? Mr Clifford said yes but out in the fields.

In summation, Ms Barnwell said the claim by Mr McAuliffe against the Cliffords should be dismissed. Ms Barnwell said a visitor has obligations to take care of his own vehicle. The barrister said the claimant has “not met the burden of proof”.

“They say Spinach got in under the van, climbed up, got to the top and caused damage. It could have been caused by a different type of animal. The respondents have done nothing negligent,” said Ms Barnwell.

Mr Dennison said Mr McAuliffe drove a van onto the Cliffords’ property, a dog was in the vicinity, wiring and pipes were chewed and dog hair found.

Judge O’Leary said she had listened carefully to the evidence and looked at the photos.

“There was no engineer’s report or forensic evidence. I’m not satisfied a dog bit the wiring and pipes,” said Judge O’Leary.

She said she was unable to see how a dog could manoeuvre itself from underneath a van to on top of the engine. 

“I am dismissing the plaintiff’s case,” said the judge. District Court costs were awarded against Mr McAuliffe but not a certificate for counsel.

Mr Dennison said immediately after the case concluded that he will be appealing.