There were conflicting accounts of what information was given to M before he approached and attempted to make contact with the dog, whereby he was bitten in the hand.

The City Court assumed that M was told upon arrival by D’s owner that D had had a traumatic upbringing and that it did not like fluttering movements around its head.

The City Court, on the other hand, did not find it proven that M had been informed that the dog was aggressive and vicious, despite the police report stating that the owner should have informed M that the dog could not be around people and other animals. Furthermore, the City Court disregarded the dog’s owners’ explanation that M had walked quickly towards the dog, which showed signs of anxiety, and nevertheless stuck his hand down into its head. Instead, the City Court based its decision on M’s own explanation that he slowly brought his hand up to the dog’s left side of the head, after which the dog, without further warning, jumped forward and bit into his outstretched hand.

The City Court thus did not find it proven that M had provoked the dog, and M could therefore not be considered to have contributed to the injury, cf. The Danish Dog Act § 8, subsection 1.

For the purpose of the case, an expert statement had been obtained, which cast doubt on whether M had handled the situation with the dog in accordance with recognised standards and norms for dog experts’ interaction with dogs. However, the fact that this may have been the case could not lead to a different result for the City Court.

The liability insurance company A appealed the judgment to the Danish Eastern High Court, which, after the main hearing, orally stated that the case would have the same outcome as in the City Court if a judgment were to be delivered. A then dropped the case.