Cyclist injured in crash with dog chasing ball sues owner for £50,000

In the US, the injured party would probably be legally allowed to shoot the dog in self defence so I think using the "In the US" is not the point as we are in the UK.

As for that weird reversal question, I don't see how it applies as the cyclist is not claiming for damages to his bike but to him. If the driver were going faster then one ought to, they would be probably be breaking the speed limit at a guess. A more apt question representing this case would be if said vehicle was travelling say 20mph, and the dog gave them a split second notice and they swerved to avoid it, hit something and got injured enough to have permanent damage in some way. Could they claim from the owner then?

As you were using American law for examples, I'm not sure if this means you are American. I you are something you might not know is that there is not a legal speed limit for cyclists on allowed shared paths over here. However Cycling UK suggest 12-15 mph max depending on circumstances which I agree with. Do I think he was doing 5mph? Probably not because I find going about walking speed on a bike is harder to control. Did he think he was doing 5mph? If he didn't have a speedo, how do you judge your speed?. Do I think he was travelling too fast? Well I doubt someone of his age and build was doing 20mph, esepcially as the path looks rough, but I think he could easily be doing a leisurely 10 mph which would be fine for me when the path is empty and the nearest person is the equivalent of a wide road width away from me. 

As I've always said, it is an interesting case when resolved either way.

Lets face it - in that there 'Merica, the injured party would probably be able to legally shoot the dog's owner, let alone the dog...

Only if they were not white. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

As you were using American law for examples, I'm not sure if this means you are American.

Dual citizen but based in Asia for most of the last decade. I've spent significantly more of my adult life spent in the US than UK – and my spouse is a US attorney – so my knowledge and opinions are obviously going to be strongly biased towards that country's legal systems. However, I don't think that inherently makes my opinions or reasoning irrelevant to this case. (Or maybe I missed the part of the sign-up process where we had to enter our nationalities, educational achievements and professional backgrounds before commenting on UK news stories?)

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

However Cycling UK suggest 12-15 mph max depending on circumstances which I agree with. Do I think he was doing 5mph? Probably not because I find going about walking speed on a bike is harder to control. Did he think he was doing 5mph? If he didn't have a speedo, how do you judge your speed?

And yet he is, apparently, confidently asserting his speed – one of the reasons that make me question his credibility. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

He could easily be doing a leisurely 10 mph which would be fine for me when the path is empty and the nearest person is the equivalent of a wide road width away from me. 

So you now agree that there is doubt about his credibiity? Does that mean he could be just as mistaken about the other facts of the case as he is about his speed?

He could have been going faster and not paying as much attention to his surroundings as he should have been, as the defendent seems to claim. 

I live in a country with MANY stray dogs. I cycle significantly faster than this guy. I cannot imagine cycling with the absolutle minimum amount of awarness and control that I believe all cyclists should have at 10mph in a park, and still hitting a spaniel in such a way as to send me flying, given all the facts presented through the media about this case. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

As I've always said, it is an interesting case when resolved either way.

Agreed!

I'm not stating you couldn't comment on it, just that laws are very different sometimes. Does America have the same dangerous dog laws for example? Over here it is illegal to own certain breeds and if a dog attacks a person, the dog is put down and the owner is charged. Also if your lovely wife and you came over to live over here and she wanted a legal job on line to what she had there, she would have to spend time re-learning all the laws etc for a period of time before she could be a prosecutor (or practice any law). 

I said I believe he might have been going faster but I can also believe he thought he was doing 5mph. I also don't believe she isn't being totally truthful as well. A scenario I could see the liability is the dog owners solely is one where the cyclist is coming from behind them. He rides past them with a massive amount of room as they are 33ft away. Then a second later she throws the ball in the thower but she get is wrong and it travels in a  way that will intersect the path ahead and not paralell as she claims. She might have even deliberatel y thrown it as she had looked ahead and it was clear but She hadn't seen the cyclist as he was to her side. The cyclist had passed them and as they were behind he didn't need to worry about them and the path ahead was clear. He suddenly hears a shout from behind so looks to see, as he looks he sees the flash of fur and brakes and swings his bike wheel to the side to avoid. He goes over, (look at my video link of the policeman doing similar on his bike under Rick Rudes) and we are in the situation we are in now. She doesn't want to admit she has quite a bit of blame for the accident because 50K plus legal costs is at stake so her defence is "well, you shouldn't have been there", "you were cycling too fast and not looking" AND "anyway, the dog pushed the ball that direction, not me". Lots of "but but but" in the defence there.

Obviously my scenario only works if they were both travelling in the same direction across the park. If they were travelling in other ways, then it might turn back to he "should have seen the dog" coming. That is why the further info would be useful for our "non-needed" judgements.

I already know your scenarios so you probably don't need to repeat my war and peace back. My post is more to state why I don't think the arguments that the cyclist should have seen her throw the ball, or the dog running towards him at speed is as clear cut as some believe. And that he could have ridden through at a reasonable and safe manner and this incident occured before he knew it. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Over here it is illegal to own certain breeds and if a dog attacks a person, the dog is put down and the owner is charged. 

While living in London, I owned a super-sweet Stafforshire terrier – easily mistaken for a pit bull – and know way too much about the UK's dangeerous dogs laws. (Not good for vacationing abroad if you want the whole family to get back into the country!)

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Also if your lovely wife and you came over to live over here and she wanted a legal job on line to what she had there, she would have to spend time re-learning all the laws etc for a period of time before she could be a prosecutor (or practice any law). 

US law schools teach common law as it's used in some US states. After having practiced within common law juridstictions, it aint too hard to become a barrister in the UK. But my spouse's status is irrelevant. I only brought their job up becasue tort law is a very common topic in my social circle. Even so, I am, by definition, ignorant. 

That said, given my work, I like to think I have a decent layman's understanding of some legal matters (in multiple countries). I'm not an attorney, but I doubt any of those I'm arguing with are either? If any are, indeed barristers, I certainly defer to their knowlege. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I also don't believe she isn't being totally truthful as well.

I gave evidence for why I think he is less than credible. What's your evidence for why we should doubt her claims? Solely the fact that she's a defendant in the case? As far as I have read, even the plaintiff isn't casting doubt on her claims. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

A scenario I could see the liability is the dog owners solely is one where the cyclist is coming from behind them. He rides past them with a massive amount of room as they are 33ft away. Then a second later she throws the ball in the thower but she get is wrong and it travels in a  way that will intersect the path ahead and not paralell as she claims. She might have even deliberatel y thrown it as she had looked ahead and it was clear but She hadn't seen the cyclist as he was to her side. The cyclist had passed them and as they were behind he didn't need to worry about them and the path ahead was clear. He suddenly hears a shout from behind so looks to see, as he looks he sees the flash of fur and brakes and swings his bike wheel to the side to avoid. He goes over, (look at my video link of the policeman doing similar on his bike under Rick Rudes) and we are in the situation we are in now. 

If the scenario you describe is accurate, I could see her being assigned some percentage (not all) of the liability; however, none of the claims made by the parties seem to match this hypothetical scenario. Maybe you've read other sources that support this narrative?

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

She doesn't want to admit she has quite a bit of blame for the accident because 50K plus legal costs is at stake so her defence is "well, you shouldn't have been there", "you were cycling too fast and not looking" AND "anyway, the dog pushed the ball that direction, not me". Lots of "but but but" in the defence there.

I have doubts that a wealthy investment banker would risk criminal perjury charges over a mere 50k. I can't prove that, but the burden of proof is on the person accusing her of lying under oath...

Utimately, I think her claims about his cycling style should make a judge or juror beleive that she's not 100% liable, and that he bears some respnsibility given the evidence we've read (which is surely a tiny percentage of all the evidence that has been submitted). And since his claims seem less credible than hers (to me, anyway, based on available evidence), I think the scales should be hanging heavier on her side. 

Staffs are great apart from their heads are rock solid. My brother had one and if he ran into your knee you knew about it. 

I would like to answer the rest, but it would be just covering pretty much the same ground. Maybe when we hear more or when the verdict comes, we can reconvene. 

“Jesus Christ, Fenton!”

Seems like Mr Harris got a bit of a raw deal - he had his dog on a lead and it somehow slipped the collar. That happened to me the other week - I was dog-sitting for a friend and looking after his dog for a couple of days. We were walking along a narrow pavement and I saw another dog walker coming towards us, so I shortened the lead (not an extendable one - it was only like a meter or so in length) to keep the dog under my control. However, somehow the collar pulled over the dog's head and he stood there calmly as I quickly tried to open it and re-attach it again.

He's a funny dog though - I was walking him off the lead in a park and there was a nearby game of football (Sunday League maybe?). We were a little way from the game, so I threw a tennis ball for the dog to chase and he went towards the ball , then veered straight towards the footballers to (in his mind) make some new friends. They weren't best pleased and of course, there's me shouting to the dog and him ignoring me because he was having fun. He came back after a minute, so I put him back on the lead (naughty boy) and sheepishly let the footballers continue their game.

Uhuru wrote:

Part of her defence is that he was cycling much faster (as he was late to work, I believe), and had his head down, not acting with the dilligence a cyclist should be.

Admit it: you think he was riding on one of those Evil TT bikes, don't you??  

brooksby wrote:

Uhuru wrote:

Part of her defence is that he was cycling much faster (as he was late to work, I believe), and had his head down, not acting with the dilligence a cyclist should be.

Admit it: you think he was riding on one of those Evil TT bikes, don't you??  

He'd have been fine if there was a small QR code on his bike

Cycling community? Who's that then.....?

4 Pages long would mean over  90 comments. I do not remember this being that high but I could be wrong. 

Pretty sure booboo had made a couple of comments on this, now missing...

Can't find him at all in the recent news items. Seems banned.

Good riddance, I say. Their comments didn't add anything worthwhile.

I'm surprised as I didn't see anything in his that would obviously breach rules. And others are still here so might not  be general posting. Of course, as with shops, the owner has the right to refuse entry for anyone but always nice if the reason is obvious. . 

Judging by replies in nmotd cyclist v learner driver on roundabout he made some dumb posts which he then described as 'humour'. Perhaps that was it.

If there was one post, it might have been the first one posted on the Taxi one about subtitles needed. I think there must have been something rather then the generic apparent trolling as it is only him gone. Although others are relieved, I'm actualy saddened if just for his posts as he did actually post useful guidance in the forums when he wasn't trying to hook people.

hirsute wrote:

Judging by replies in nmotd cyclist v learner driver on roundabout he made some dumb posts which he then described as 'humour'. Perhaps that was it.

TBH I wondered if their comments in the Big Yellow Taxi NMOTD had p!$$ed off a Scottish road.cc sysadmin...

I'm not at all surprised due to the number of people that they were annoying. I guess that someone at road.cc decided that enough was enough and deleted the account.

I replied to him a couple times early on saying for someone who keeps getting called a troll you seem determined to prove them right.

hirsute wrote:

Can't find him at all in the recent news items. Seems banned.

Seconded.  Boo's comments in the Big Yellow Taxi NMOTD have disappeared too.

(Socrati's comments are still there).

If he ends up gone, I'll start subscribing in an instant.

Hint, hint...

Seems that all BOOHOOs comments have gone, along with any that were in that thread. A shame, as my particularly amusing anecdote about Dunkery Beacon near Porlock has gone too....

I presume It's been struck off - I don't think you can delete your own comments. Don't know about the other one

I solve the annoyance of the 2 resident nutters by not reading anything by them or referring to anything by them I am grateful for the warning that one of the nutters has possibly resurfaced with another name for me to shun.

wtjs wrote:

I solve the annoyance of the 2 resident nutters by not reading anything by them or referring to anything by them I am grateful for the warning that one of the nutters has possibly resurfaced with another name for me to shun.

Maybe you should report me to the admins and ask them to check my IP address and sign-up date?

I'm totally baffled as to why the apparent racist (according to AlsoSomniloquism) "Boo" would have signed up with this sepcific user name (celebrating black liberation) months before today. But I usually only read tech stories, so I had no idea about the toxic atmosphere and mobbish behavior shown toward minorities and Yanks in the news comments sections.

(Eagerly awaiting your apology for the "nutter" insult and false ID 😄!)