However,a territory judge has questioned laws that"permits residents of Canberra to be put at risk by aggressive dogs owned by others".
Daniel Meyers shows the injuries sustained after being mauled by two dogs in a public housing block.Karleen Minney
"In an urban community where crime rates are low,there is no reason why citizens need dogs that are of such a temperament as to represent a threat to the lives of other citizens,"Justice David Mossop wrote in his decision.
Daniel Meyers received horrific injuries when he was mauled by two pitbull terriers kept by visitors of a tenant at the Spence public housing complex in 2016.
He lost a finger,part of his hand and tricep,and suffered nerve damage after the dogs attacked as he returned home on March 15.
Mr Meyers launched legal action in the ACT Supreme Court,suing the commissioner for social housing for a breach of his lease and negligence.
He also sued the territory claiming it had owed him a duty of care to exercise powers under the Domestic Animals Act to remove the dogs and prevent him suffering the injuries.
During an eight-day trial in June,the court heard Housing ACT received a complaint about the dogs in December 2015 and the tenant had been told the animals presence had been a breach of the lease.
The animals then attacked a visitor to the complex in January,but the man managed to escape unharmed.
He complained to the authorities,but Domestic Animal Services told him it could not remove the dogs as he had not been bitten and referred him to Housing ACT.
However,Housing ACT said it could not do anything until DAS had acted.
An animal warning notice was later issued and the tenant served a notice to remedy which gave him 14 days to remove the dogs.
Further complaints were made and the tenant was warned the lease would be terminated in February,2016.
Mr Meyers was attacked the following month.
Mr Meyers barrister,John Purnell,SC,told the court that DAS had been negligent when it provided incorrect advice to Housing ACT about powers to seize or remove dogs.
He said that after the attack it had been"abundantly clear that safety for the tenants of the complex and visitors to the complex was a burning issue that must be addressed by the territory".
The silk also argued that Housing ACT had failed as it did not evict the tenant before the attack on Mr Meyers.
Justice David Mossop,,found the ACT Commissioner for Social Housing did not breach it’s lease with or breach any duty of care owed to Mr Meyers .
Justice Mossop also found the ACT did not owe Mr Meyers a duty in the way DAS enforced the Domestic Animals Act.
"The plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary causal link between any breach of duty on the part of the Commissioner and the injuries that he suffered,"the judge wrote.
However,Justice Mossop said the case’s dismissal did not"indicate that it is appropriate that a citizen can get savagely mauled by dogs whilst lawfully going about his business”.
"In this case,the plaintiff suffered a severe attack to his hands and shoulder,and lost a finger. He was very lucky not to be killed.
"Neither the difficulties of designing an appropriate legislative scheme,nor the importance of the respect for private property or the autonomy of dog owners,require a legislative regime which permits residents of Canberra to be put at risk by aggressive dogs owned by others."