Abstract
The system of Polish law regulates both the protection of animals and the protection of humans from animals. Insofar as the first direction of regulations is strongly developed, popular, and fashionable and reflects the present-day trends in environmental protection law, the latter is not as popular. Both directions of the regulations show signs of axiological conflict. In the case of protection of animals, they are treated as a protected good, referring to their suffering, ability to feel, having emotions, etc. These circumstances do not only opt for covering animals by legal protection. Some people are even tempted to postulate the need for recognizing animals as subjects. However, the same animal that can suffer and feel and has emotions can pose a hazard to man – in certain extreme cases even a fatal one. Thus, animals are protected from humans, which is the right solution, but at the same time humans should be protected from animals. When exploring the issues of animal protection, it is worth remembering that such a second dimension exists.
Highlights
Animal welfare and animal rights have recently become increasingly popular objects of interest in law and legal sciences
The debate is mostly one-sided as it focuses on the protection of animals
“The Rules describe in detail how cleanliness and order should be maintained in the municipality to the extent of: [...] 6) obligations of owners of domestic animals to protect other people from hazard or nuisance and from fouling the area for common use; 7) requirements with regard to keeping farm animals in an area excluded from agricultural production, including a ban on keeping them in specific areas or respective real properties”
Summary
Animal welfare and animal rights have recently become increasingly popular objects of interest in law and legal sciences. Pursuant to this provision, “The Rules describe in detail how cleanliness and order should be maintained in the municipality to the extent of: [...] 6) obligations of owners of domestic animals to protect other people from hazard or nuisance and from fouling the area for common use; 7) requirements with regard to keeping farm animals in an area excluded from agricultural production, including a ban on keeping them in specific areas or respective real properties”.19. This problem is even clearer in the case of another legal norm referring to this issue, namely, Article 431 of the Civil Code.22 This provision reads: “Anyone who keeps or uses an animal is obliged to remedy any damage the animal causes irrespective of whether it was under his supervision, or had strayed or run away, unless neither he nor a person for whom he is responsible is at fault”. It is impossible to analyze this provision in more detail and depth, but the jurisprudence and literature output is significant, so it is sufficient to refer to the basic literature.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
