Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to ask you for help on who I should sue...?

105 replies

stuckstudent · 31/12/2016 10:32

I need to preface this by saying I'm a regular poster who has name changed as this isn't a RL scenario - I'm absolutely stuck with part of an assignment I don't want my tutor to work out I don't know what I'm doing

Six months ago you visited a restaurant, before you entered a dog escaped from a pet shop two doors away. Dog runs into the road causing a car to swerve and hit a lamppost which in turn falls on the pavement and causes a chair on the pavement, belonging to the restaurant, to fly into the air. The chair hits you on the head, knocks you unconscious and you break an arm in the fall. You have to take 4 months off work.

If you wanted to pursue a personal injury and loss of earnings claim who would you issue proceedings against? I think you would claim against the restaurant's public liability insurance but my DH thinks you, and the car driver, would pursue a claim against the pet shop for negligence...

AIBU to ask MN to save my sanity?!

OP posts:
Soubriquet · 31/12/2016 10:33

It wouldn't even occur to me to sue.

Everything was one accident after another!

ShowMePotatoSalad · 31/12/2016 10:34

What sort of pet shop has dogs in it? Or was it the pet of a customer?

cherrycrumblecustard · 31/12/2016 10:34

What sort of pet shop sells dogs?

Candlestickchick · 31/12/2016 10:35

Where is the negligence on the part of the restaurant? All they did was have a chair outside. Pet shop probably better but I'd think you'd come up against all kinds of foreseeability/remoteness issues against them.

LIZS · 31/12/2016 10:36

If you were eating in the restaurant wouldn't your contract be with them, who in turn could claim re. Dog .

Hassled · 31/12/2016 10:36

You sue the restaurant, because it was their chair. The restaurant sues the car driver because their car caused the chair to fly into the air. The car driver sues the pet shop because they were responsible for the dog. The pet shop sues the people who provided such shit quality cages that allowed the dog to escape.

Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer and have no idea what I'm talking about.

KnittedBlanketHoles · 31/12/2016 10:36

If the chair was supposed or afford to be on the pavement I would sue the petshop, if the chair shouldn't have been there I would sue the restaurant and the petshop.

GeillisTheWitch · 31/12/2016 10:36

The owner of the dog for not having it under control in a public place? Mind you, I know next to nothing about law.

Hassled · 31/12/2016 10:37

Pet shops used to sell dogs. Hence the popular song "How much is that doggie in the window, the one with the waggily tail?".

ParadiseCity · 31/12/2016 10:39

Possibly Local Authority as the lamppost should be strong enough to withstand car hitting it. I'd ask for their records of maintaining the lamppost and take it from there.

Provided car travelling within speed limit and driver not drunk, has insurance MOT etc.

Nb I am guessing!!

Soubriquet · 31/12/2016 10:39

Some pet shops still do. Not many as it requires a licence from the council and strict conditions but some still do

SmellySphinx · 31/12/2016 10:41

Collateral damage? I and I imagine all the others involved would choose the petshop as first port of call

TrustySnail · 31/12/2016 10:42

Pet shops used to sell dogs. Hence the popular song "How much is that doggie in the window, the one with the waggily tail?"

The 'politically correct' version is now "Do you see that doggie in the shelter (etc.)" but it somehow isn't the same.

Hassled's answer sounds most sensible - there are so many variables here; was the chair in a place it was allowed to be, was the lamp post properly maintained, was the driver fit to drive that there would have to be a chain of proceedings to unravel them. A fascinating scenario!

Salmotrutta · 31/12/2016 10:42

Do you not have access to any law texts with stated cases where you can find any that have set precedents?

I may watch programmes like Suits too much

RJnomore1 · 31/12/2016 10:42

The pet shop because it would be reasonable to expect a dog may try to escape and they should have put systems in place to negate that happening.

Although that's a good point about the local authority and the lamp post. Would be reasonable to expect it to withstand a car colliding with it too.

Disclaimer - it has been some time since I studied law.

ElfOnMyShelf · 31/12/2016 10:42

I have no legal expertise
But based on the way a car insurance company deals with a multiple accident I'd say hassled has it. The claims go down the line to the person at fault.

But I've no idea

Balonder · 31/12/2016 10:42

The driver shouldn't have swerved to avoid the dog. If the driver had hit the dog, the dog's owner could be sued for damage to the car but the driver was responsible for the damage caused by avoiding the dog, as far as I know

Lorelei76 · 31/12/2016 10:43

this is your homework assignment?

figure it our yo' damn self.

Salmotrutta · 31/12/2016 10:43

Why are people fo using on pet shops selling dogs or not?

It's a made up "scenario" isn't it?

NoFucksImAQueen · 31/12/2016 10:44

Dog owner surely? If your dog causes a crash as an owner you are liable. That whole chain of events was down to the dog.
It doesn't feel the same to me as when a car back ends another car who then in turn hits the car in front as in a scenario like that the middle car could have taken steps to prevent hitting the car at the very front (not being so close etc) but the restaurant cant prevent a lamppost falling on them

CakeMakesEverythingBetter · 31/12/2016 10:46

In practice you would probably end up suing them all and the Court would sort it out. Make sure you use the phrase "chain of causation" somewhere. The 'actual' answer is imo the restaurant.

Original poster
stuckstudent · 31/12/2016 10:46

Salmotrutta I don't even know what to look up to work it out - I don't think we've covered sequential accidents in the module which make me think it's a red herring and the sequence doesn't matter.

Lorelei76 if I could I would... I'm 13 weeks pregnant and have spent my first trimester napping at any opportunity; not a great combination for pursuing a law degree and working full time!

OP posts:
BellyBean · 31/12/2016 10:46

Surely you sue whoever directly caused you damage and they sue the people in th chain, eventually getting back to the pet shop.

LauraMipsum · 31/12/2016 10:46

Lawyer here but it's been a long time since I had to do these.

It's about reasonable foreseeability. So you can have the pet shop for failing to keep the dog in. It was reasonably foreseeable that if a dog escaped into a busy street that it would cause chaos.

The restaurant - well you hadn't gone in yet, which may make a difference. Are they licensed for chairs outside? If so then you sue the council as it was foreseeable that any car accident could do this regardless of cause of accident. If not then the restaurant shouldn't have had the chairs outside and may be liable.

The actual answer is "nobody, this isn't bloody America" Grin

Ellisandra · 31/12/2016 10:47

YABU to ask this here.
You'll get lots of opinions from people who don't know anything about negiligence.

You would be far better off going to your tutor and saying "look, I don't get this - can you talk me through it or guide me to the relevant text book that I should read?"

What is useful about posting is that you'll see how complicated law is and how much opinion can vary on what is fair.

Candlestick is right - it's all about foreseeability and remoteness.

This is surely the whole point of going to college and having a tutor? To support you when a tricky concept baffles you? And it is a tricky one - don't feel bad that you're confused, especially as it is an exercise DESIGNED to be ambiguous and arguable.