Who was unreasonable?

[FiddleWiddiRiddim]

Man and his son were in the park driving around two remote-control cars. A big dog was in the park off-lead, which is allowed at that time in the morning.

As they cross paths one remote-control car goes near the dog. Dog owner calls the dog over and tells the man and the son that the dog will pick up the car, run off and chew it if it comes too near him.

Man says "okay" and they move on.

Later, they cross paths again on a narrow path.

The dog owner calls her dog close as the man and his son get closer. The man/son keep their remote-control cars going as they pass so the car comes close to the dog.

The dog goes nuts, picks up the car and runs with it.

The dog owner calmly walks after her dog. The man starts yelling at the dog owner to get the car back. The son goes chasing the dog, which the dog completely loves and which gets the dog really excited meaning it runs further and throws the car around like a ragdoll.

After several minutes, the owner catches up with the dog. The toy car is very clearly knackered. The owner puts him on the lead and goes to leave the park. The man insists the dog owner needs to pay for a new car as the damage is her fault. The dog owner says she warned him about the car coming too close to her dog so he should've picked it up until they'd walked past the dog. Therefore, the damage is his fault and she won't be paying.

So, who's in the right? And WWYD?

[StealthPolarBear]

I think dog owner is right

[Wheelerdeeler]

Dog owner in the right

[gunsandbanjos]

Dog should have been on a lead and car drivers should have kept the cars away. Both at fault.

[WhatwouldAryado]

Well the dog owner carried through on their threat there.

[grannysmiff]

Dog owner wrong. I would have called dog over and held his collar until cars were well away.

[Katedotness1963]

Dogs should be on leads in public spaces.

[Soubriquet]

Hmmmm car owner is definitely at fault for going near the dog owner after he was warned but if the dog owner knew the dog would go for the car, she should have placed him on a lead

[FadedRed]

Both. Dog owner should have held on to the dog and car owner should have picked up car until passed the dog. Both could have avoided meeting each other again in park.

[Homemadearmy]

Agree both at fault.

[messyjessy17]

Dog destroyed car, owner is liable to replace. Also dog owner shouldn't have dog off lead if she cant control him, which she clearly can't.
Properly trained under control dog would have dropped the car before it was destroyed.

Dog owner is BU.

[triplesalco]

Dog owner is in the right.
My local park allows dogs off lead but remote control cars are banned. He was warned and acknowledged the warning.

[FizzyGreenWater]

Dog owner was right.

Car man did what the hell he liked despite warnings - paid price.

[messyjessy17]

Are you missing the bit where it took owner several minutes to get her dog under control?

[KarateKitten]

Dog owner is in the wrong. If they can't control their dog it needs to be on a lead. The cars were perfectly under control and not in danger of picking up the dog and ripping it to shreds.

[DadDadDad]

Did the dog owner (which I am guessing is you, OP), call the dog to stop and drop the car as well as walking calmly after the dog?

I don't have much sympathy for the car owner - even without your warning, he would have no idea how a dog might react, and should have had common sense to make sure a dog couldn't get near a valuable toy.

[kali110]

Not a dog owner, but car owner.
They were warned.
Dogs should be allowed to be off leads sometimes.

[kali110]

*Meant to be im not a dog owner, blame the car owner.

[stitchglitched]

If it took several minutes for the dog owner to catch up with the dog then they didn't have dog under their control in public. Dog owner should pay, park allowing dogs off lead isn't a license to destroy people's property.

[Biker47]

Are you missing the bit where it took owner several minutes to get her dog under control?

Are you missing the bit where it was the son that chased after the dog, causing it to run, thus taking it longer for the owner to get the dog?

[Whambarsarentasfizzyastheywere]

The dog owner should pay for the car.

The dog should have been on a lead if the owner couldn't control it.

The car man was being a bit silly too though.

[SummerKelly]

I think dog owner in the wrong, particularly as there was a time lapse between first mentioning it and the incident. I’ve been told not to run and cycle in the park by dog owners as their dogs will chase me, seems similar.

[QueenofallIsee]

Dog Owner was in the wrong - the dog should have been on a lead, the dog should have dropped the car at first command (not after several minutes) and the 'calmly walked after the dog' kind of sounds like a smug 'told you so'

No, I would not have driven remote control cars by the dog when asked not too but why on earth would the dog not be put on a lead or held when it happened?

[PuppyMonkey]

I think that as the dog owner was aware exactly what dog would do, the onus was on dog owner to avert the problem by putting the dog on lead and holding onto it. Yes the car people were idiots for carrying on, but they maybe don't understand dogs.

[arethereanyleftatall]

Dog owner (you?) is wrong. Should have been on a lead if that uncontrollable.

[abbsisspartacus]

Well not only did they not heed dog owners warning they chased a dog and caused a fuss dog owner possibly would have got it back in one piece if they hadn't done that

Car owner totally wrong