Tenielle Potter: Langwarrin dog kills cat after wire door escape

A lawyer says a Langwarrin woman whose cat was mauled by a neighbour’s dog was partly to blame and should have found cheaper vet care.

Tenielle Potter's dogs.

A woman whose dog escaped from her house after it unlatched a wire door and brutally crushed the skull of a neighbour’s cat has been forced to pay more than $11,000 in vet fees.

Tenielle Potter, 37 of Langwarrin, pleaded guilty to dog attack and unregistered pet charges at the online Frankston Magistrates’ Court on Thursday.

But her lawyer tried to put some of the blame for the painful incident on the cat’s elderly owner and told her she paid too much to try and save her beloved pet.

The neighbour, who is still recovering from the trauma of seeing three-year-old Ron being mauled by the Staffordshire bull terrier, cried as she was told she should have asked for cheaper options to care for him as he lay dying at the vets.

Ron suffered serious injuries including a fractured skull and jaw, puncture wounds and bleeding and had to be euthanized three days after the attack.

Frankston Council prosecutor Bruce Gardiner told the court around 8pm on December 23 last year Potter was at her unit with the front door open but the wire door shut.

Ron walked past and somehow one of the dogs managed to open the wire door and raced towards the cat, picking him up in his jaws.

Potter, Ron’s owner and other neighbours ran out to try and help, with one using a garden hose to distract the attacking dog.

Ron was released from the canine’s mouth and taken to the vets for critical care.

Despite extensive treatment, on December 26 it was decided he couldn’t recover from his horrific injuries and would need to be put down.

Both the attacking dog and another Staffordshire terrier owned by Potter were unregistered at the time.

Potter’s lawyer Hazel Whalley said her client was extremely remorseful and tried to do everything she could as quickly as she could to help the cat.

But she contested the vet cost, saying the fees were “not reasonably incurred” and there was a “lack of attempts by (the victim) to inquire about other avenues of care”.

She said the cat owner “had a degree of complicity” and “some shared responsibility” because both animals were where they shouldn’t have been.

But under Frankston Council bylaw regulations, that was not correct.

She said it had slipped Potter’s mind to register her pets because she had moved house and was stressed from a relationship breakdown, but had paid as soon as she was made aware.

The victim told the court she was upset and did what she thought was right in a harrowing situation.

“I was worried about Ron, what had happened to him was brutal,” she said.

“It was a stressful period for me, it still is really upsetting for me, months later I am still not right.

“I don’t remember thinking about cost (at the time), I just wanted to give him a fighting chance to survive.”

Mr Gardiner told the court Ron was allowed to be outside the unit at that time, and his owner had not broken any bylaws and was not responsible for the attack in any way, shape or form.

Magistrate Charles Tan said although Potter had shown remorse, owners had to be held accountable for what their animals did.

“Owners of dogs have to be vigilant, obviously this was not deliberate or intentional, but it has had an impact on the victim,” Mr Tan said.

“No pet owners would give up on their pet and think about cost instead of saving them.

“She (cat owner) has done no wrong, what she did was reasonable, she was suffering trauma at the time and did not turn her mind to reducing the cost.”

Potter was fined $850 and placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond with a condition she donate $200 to the RSPCA.

She was also ordered to pay the full compensation in the amount of $11,266.10.