Cyclist vs dog court case

[JacobReesMogadishu]

Interesting decision by the judge. A cyclist cycling in a park where cycling isn't allowed had a collision with a dog who was chasing after a ball. The judge has found in favour of the cyclist and could be awarded 50k compensation. Said the dog owner was negligent in not calling the dog back.

Hope the dog owner has insurance!

metro.co.uk/2020/10/28/cyclist-who-sued-dog-owner-after-being-knocked-off-bike-wins-payout-13493853/

@12frogsincoats

Having a dog off the lead next to a road is breaking the law for those that aren't aware under the Road Traffic Act - They broke the law - I didn't 🤷‍♀️

I've been a dog owner in the past and considered dogs part of my family. But I also behaved responsibly as their owner and didnt put others at risk

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

Yes in my case it was likely me or the dog - I tried to do an emergency stop but also had a double decker bus up my arse in a 60mph zone or would have had to swerve into oncoming traffic

[quote SBTLove]@12frogsincoats
I imagine it was her car insurance that sued the dog owners, I’d hope anyone with an ounce of decency wouldn’t decide this themselves.[/quote]

I would have chosen to do it anyway irrespective of the car insurers. They broke the law and put me and other road users at risk

TBF the critical reason given for the judgement was the the owner did not TRY to recall the dog away from the path - instead using that time to try and call out and warn the cyclist.

That is what the judge appears to have made the judgement on, which suggests if she had called the dog instead, the judgement would not have been the same.

I can't say for certain I would have made a different decision in that split moment (but then I wouldn't be throwing balls for dogs in Acton Green Common, which is pretty well used).

Legal insurance cover - which dog owners should have as standard - would cover this I would have thought.

@altforvarmt

The decision seems right. He's experiencing a significant impact on his quality of life as a result of his brain injury.

Some could argue that ignoring the no cycling rules in the park he clearly already had problems in the brain department. Sorry but disgraceful decision by the judge. What if he had hit a child running for the ball?

Also, tbf to @ivfbeenbusy I had a very similar circumstances with a cat in the road. It was truly terrifying and I had to make a split decision between hitting the cat or running my car off the road - which is what I did. But it was a very scary and costly decision.

I wish cats were also kept away from roads (indoors), myself. Especially in built up areas where they often don't have the road sense their owners think they do.

From the article it looks as though the judge based his decision on the owner not controlling her dog.

She says she tried to warn the cyclist, which means that she had time to call out before the accident happened. Unfortunately for her, she called out to the cyclist and not the dog.

As she had earlier said in her statement that the dog was well-trained and would come back when called, the judge ruled that the collision occurred because she hadn't done so.

I think that if the accident had happened more quickly and the owner hadn't had time to react, the ruling may well have been very different.

I think it sounds harsh as cycling wasnt allowed in the park.
If cyclist was walking or jogging instead its highly unlikely he would have sustained those injuries.
He was breaking the bylaws by cycling in the park and so probably the dog owner wasnt expecting cyclists. The dog owner should have had better control of their dog but ultimately its a terrible accident but I dont agree with suing people over something like this, they were both at fault and it was an accident.

@ProfessorSlocombe
Unlikely (to the extent I would bet on it) that the dog owner had any insurance.

Why? 3 million dogs are insured in the UK. Certainly I and every dog owner I know have insurance.

Acton Green common is pretty small. The few paths are narrow. Maybe ok for small children to cycle but not adults.

[quote TibetanTerrier]@ProfessorSlocombe
Unlikely (to the extent I would bet on it) that the dog owner had any insurance.

Why? 3 million dogs are insured in the UK. Certainly I and every dog owner I know have insurance.[/quote]
Why ? Because even insurance that is mandated by law - like motor insurance - is still dodged by the people that really need it most.

Obviously responsible dog owners would make it their business to have insurance to cover their dog in the event it caused damage injury or death.

The problem is it's the irresponsible dog owners that end up causing damage injury and death. In my experience. Hence my comment.

@BeesBehindMyKnees
I swerved to avoid a fox, hit the kerb and wrecked my wheel, but Mr Fox lived another day 🦊👍🏼
I would never sue someone who's dog I had killed.

[quote SBTLove]@BeesBehindMyKnees
I swerved to avoid a fox, hit the kerb and wrecked my wheel, but Mr Fox lived another day 🦊👍🏼
I would never sue someone who's dog I had killed.[/quote]
Even if your car was written off as a result ?

No, personally I wouldn’t, if my insurance company did that’s their decision. Unlike the pp who was wholeheartedly for suing.

Membership of Dogs Trust includes third party insurance in case your dog injures someone or damages property. Certain breeds are exluded.

Was the cyclists brain injury worse after the accident?
Look where you going.... dogs like to run after balls in parks!

Why its it mandatory to have cycling insurance? Surely this would be a reasonable start for those worrying about injury.

• why isn't it

@Eng123

Was the cyclists brain injury worse after the accident? Look where you going.... dogs like to run after balls in parks!

His brain injury was caused by the accident with the dog.

@Eng123

Was the cyclists brain injury worse after the accident? Look where you going.... dogs like to run after balls in parks!

Is that an attempt at humour, or just victim blaming ?