Set out the liability questions for a dog attack
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- List the owner or person in apparent control, the harm described in the records, and any provocation or trespass the documents mention. Do not plead the cause of action.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides who is liable, on which section, and whether a defence in that section is open.
- Do not turn an offence into a civil damages claim unless the opened section creates one.
- Keep health and wage records in a firm-controlled tool, not a public one.
- ASCR r 9 and APP 11 apply. Decide if a breach is notifiable under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply: NSWVICQLD
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | List the owner or person in apparent control, the harm described in the records, and any provocation or trespass the documents mention. Do not plead the cause of action. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Name the owner and any person in apparent control from a document, not from the client's description alone.
- In Victoria keep the offence, and any compensation order after a finding of guilt, separate from a negligence claim.
- In New South Wales record the section 25 exceptions that the documents raise.
- In Queensland do not import the New South Wales damages section.
Sources
- Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) section 29, AustLII · 2026-10-23
- Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) section 9, AustLII · 2026-10-23
- Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) section 25, AustLII · 2026-10-23
- Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) section 48, AustLII · 2026-10-23
These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.
If the same facts later go into an affidavit or witness statement in the District Court of New South Wales, its Generative AI Practice Note (commenced 3 February 2025) says generative AI must not generate that content.
Supreme Court of Victoria practice note SC GEN 25 (commenced 14 May 2026) calls for particular caution where generative AI assists with affidavit material, a witness statement or an expert report. The document must reflect the person's own knowledge.
Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction 5 of 2025 requires the practitioner responsible for written submissions to be named, and to verify the references.