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

Exactly - the dog owner is responsible for harm caused by the actions of the dog.

If the dog were on a lead and darted into the path of a cyclist/jogger causing them to fall and be injured, then the owner would still be responsible even though they hadn't done anything wrong.

C'mon HP, where are the squirrel pics? Surely they are more of a danger in a park ?

hirsute wrote:

C'mon HP, where are the squirrel pics? Surely they are more of a danger in a park ?

I'm considering the commercial side of starting up a new aero-wheel cover business, but I'm consulting with lawyers at the moment about possible dog attacks and whether the covers would count as enticement.

Mungecrundle wrote:

 She probably has cover on her house insurance policy.

I think most pet insurance (usually taken out to cover vet bills) has 3rd party liability too.

You've summed it up well. It's not as negligent as exercising a dog next to a motorway and it runs out causing a pile up. But more so than it running over and swiping a sausage roll from someones picnic in the park. Both of which you might reasonably expect the dog owner to be responsible for.

That reminds me of cycling though a park on a national route. I noticed a dog by some railings to my right and just off the shared path. The next thing I saw was this thin black lead across the path. The sun was so bright, I only spotted it at the last moment.

To my mind, the owner was negligent by allowing his dog on a long extendable lead across a marked, shared path. Had I been taken out by the dog, litigation would have been a reasonable option.

If it truly is a freak accident, then sometimes insurance will not pay out. But it really has to be a totally unavoidable situation.

The defence in this case is arguing that the ball bounced erratically and it was a freak occurance. But in my (limited) experience of throwing balls, they do often bounce erratically.

I think they are actually stating that after she threw it, instead of the dog catching it in his mouth, it hit him on the head and that changed directions into the cyclists path. Again, something out of her specific control maybe but again, owning spaniels in the past, it is not unknown for dogs to do that.

This is still the bit that I can't envision from her account though.

Quote:

Ms Read’s lawyer, Nigel Lewers, said that on the morning of the accident his client, also from Chiswick, was using a ‘thrower’ to exercise Felix. She was standing around 33ft from the path, separated by a strip of daffodils.

‘She threw the ball parallel to the path,’ he said. ‘Felix went after the ball and it bounced off his head, deflecting towards the path.

11 metres from the path with the daffodils in the way and not thrown towards it and it still rolled onto the path after hitting the dogs head. How hard did she throw it?

But the case will be interesting either way. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

But the case will be interesting either way. 

It could potentially give a green light to the anti-cycling faction to train up packs of kamikaze cyclist attack dogs. Who launch themselves under the wheels of riders when a ball is fired in the general vincinity of the target...

Also, one of the general park bylaws talks about not launching missiles. Is a ball launched from a thrower considered a missile?!

Years ago, I bought a ladder propped it up against the car to get the boot open. There was then a gust of wind that blew the ladder over and dented a nearby car.

The insurance company refused liability on the basis of freak accident but changed their minds when a small claims court letter turned up !

hirsute wrote:

Years ago, I bought a ladder propped it up against the car to get the boot open.

You hooligan! 

I suspect it's a little outside the intent of the legislation, though, which is probably dealing with dogs that are dangerous in the sense of being actively aggressive, rather than just running around a bit.

If an out of control dog runs into you and injures you is that any different to an out of control dog biting you?

I'm far less likely to be seriously hurt by a small dog biting me than by it running into my front wheel.

Keeping a dog under control means just that.

If your dog is injuring people then you don't have it under sufficient control.

From the article, isn't that some the of Legalities he is claiming with her defence lawyer stating it is only dangerous dogs. The outcome will be interesting anyway to determine for future cases. 

It is.

I'm hoping this case establishes the legal responsibilities of dog owners a bit more clearly.

Much like car ownership the harm caused by dog ownership is largely ignored.

This took place in a park or common? If people can't let their dog have a bit of a run around and chase a ball in a park because someone cycling at 5mph can't avoid an errant dog, I think the world will be a poorer place. If you cycle through a park you look out for stuff like this. It would be different had the dog run into the road and collided with the cyclist. If the guy can't deal with what goes on in a park then get off and push - don't expect everyone else to curtail their reasonable enjoyment to accommodate you.

That is a strangely entitled view.

You have a legal duty to prevent your dog causing harm to others.

If you can't manage to do that then don't own a dog.

But the dog didn't harm anybody. The cyclist just failed to take account of his surroundings and came off his bike through incompetence. That harmed him.

Obviously we don' have a real sequence of events in this case that can be trusted. But lets imagine a scenario happens where someone cycled past the walker and dog. The walker then throws the ball further then usualwith the device and the dog runs from behind and in front of the cyclist and causes a similar accident with similar injuries? Is that the cyclists fault for not looking behind them all the time because he passed them safely already?

Or actually lets take the bike out of it. A dog chasing the ball knocked a 5 yo flying and that kid hit the ground hard with their head and had similar injuries? Did the dog not harm the child. Is it the parent of the child fault for not checking the surroundings. 

I don't blame the dog, after all it was doing what dogs do, but some responsibility has to go to owners and it might or might not be proven in this case whether she was at fault or not. 

Except we don't really know what happened.

There is a duty to keep a dog under control. It has got this far because there is a dispute about whether the dog was not under control, the cyclist was at fault etc or the level of damages.

Not sure how you have enough evidence to blame the cyclist but as I said in my first post, there is insufficient evidence to make any real comment.

That is a rather spurious claim.

Nobody is disputing that the dog ran in front of the bike.

That put the cyclist in danger requiring him to take evasive action.

That is the point at which liability occurs.

You have literally no proof for the rest of your post.

There are 3 things to prove. Duty of care, resulting damage, duty of care broken.

The first two seem a given, so the dispute is about the extent to which the duty of care was broken (if at all) and the level of damages payable.

We will have to wait for the outcome.

I actually think the strangely entitled view is that just because there is an incident that compensation is somehow due.

The problem is perhaps not the legal position but the compensation culture that has grown up off the back of it.  I would argue that if people were more aware that there no chance of "free" money from these kind of incidents then the actual problem would go away.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I actually think the strangely entitled view is that just because there is an incident that compensation is somehow due.

The problem is perhaps not the legal position but the compensation culture that has grown up off the back of it.  I would argue that if people were more aware that there no chance of "free" money from these kind of incidents then the actual problem would go away.

Very big assumption there. "Shit happens; deal with it" then ?

There is a reason why third party liability insurance exists.

I don't think Rich has argued that compensation is due in this case but I might have missed this. I think the argument is are owners legally resposible for incidents caused by dogs that aren't biting incidents? Now that might mean paying damages to cover out of pocket expenses or even charges if any can be applied. But it will be interesting to see the outcome when it occurs.

I understand you with Compo culture but in some cases it is needed. I hate when you see apparently frivolous claims like the the one last year who had a small scar on her face and won more then my Mrs got from Victim Compensation (free money woohoo) when she lost the use of a finger permanently when the tendons were sliced by a knife wielding robber. And remember the judge reduced the scar lady award to £4000 as he stated he didn't believe it effected her beauty. She was claiming alot more then that initially. 

I happen to take the exact opposite view.

If every individual in society was required to pay for the harm that they personally caused we'd see far more considerate behaviour all round.

The difficulty with the current system is that it incentivises spurious claims.

The basic principle of paying for the harm your actions cause is sound.

They are equally to blame. The dog wasn't wearing hi-viz and the cyclist should have bunny hopped the dog like this curb dog

Sriracha wrote:

This took place in a park or common? If people can't let their dog have a bit of a run around and chase a ball in a park because someone cycling at 5mph can't avoid an errant dog, I think the world will be a poorer place. If you cycle through a park you look out for stuff like this. It would be different had the dog run into the road and collided with the cyclist. If the guy can't deal with what goes on in a park then get off and push - don't expect everyone else to curtail their reasonable enjoyment to accommodate you.

It's not about curtailing a reasonable activity, but determining liability should the unexpected happen.

If a car crashes into a building because the brakes failed, you would expect the driver's insurance to bear the liability, even though there was no negligence on the part of the driver.

Ahh, the gentle sound of the "he was only playing" argument.

The cyclist is going to need some pretty clear independent witness evidence e.g. as to his speed.

He's on a loser if he shouldn't have been cycling in the location - does anyone know?

If he was allowed to cycle there and the path was clear (she was 11 metres off the path for example) then he could have been doing 12-15mph and that would have been 'legal' so the actual speed question is a bit of a red herring really. The head down not looking bit though..... witnesses for both parties would have been useful. 

As for "was he allowed to cycle there". No obvious bylaws we have found cover Acton Park Common but in four years, things may have changed.However there is also no "no cycling " or "cycling allowed" signs on the entrance signs which state rules. But there is one stating no bikes allowed on the entrance to the play area further in the park. So I suspect we will see from the case.