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:
MatildaTheCat · 31/12/2016 12:42

I would consult a lawyer, but I'm guessing that doesn't help you?!

Actually I would sue the restaurant since that's is where the injury occurred and by their property. Then their legal team could try to push back to the driver's insurance and so on. I don't think it would be the injured persons responsibility to do that.

IAmNotAUserNumber · 31/12/2016 12:43

Sorry but if you don't know the answer you need to speak to your tutor or do some self study. The tutor doesn't set assignment and spend tedious amounts of time marking them to elicit the collective non-legal wisdom of MN. You need to take ownership of your own study and circumstances. Otherwise you are simply a cheat.

LightsLoveLaughter · 31/12/2016 12:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mumhum · 31/12/2016 12:53

Lawyer here, agree with LightsLove and PP.

IAmNotAUserNumber · 31/12/2016 12:57

I'm a lawyer and I disagree with lights and PP

DontTouchTheMoustache · 31/12/2016 13:06

I vaguely remember from my days of studying law (which was a decade ago so I am rusty) that you need to apply the 'but for' test...(but for the defendants negligence would the injury have occured) but I can't remember too much detail

Cheby · 31/12/2016 13:09

I'm very much not a lawyer. But I'm finding this interesting none the less.

So from what people have said above, the person who appears to have breached a duty of care directly the the OP here is the car driver? Driver should not have swerved to avoid dog and in choosing to do so caused the injury.

As long as the restaurant had complied with legislation/permissions regarding pavement furniture and that was risk assessed when put in place, then they haven't breached any duty of care? I would say they do have a duty of care to customers and the general public but they wouldn't have breached it if they had complied properly with regulations.

Am I vaguely right?!

I don't know whether the pet shop had a duty of care to drivers/the public regarding the dog. Maybe? I guess if the dog escaped and bit someone then I would say they did have, so maybe should be the same for causing an accident? I still think the driver took the wrong course of action by swerving though, so was negligent/at fault.

eurochick · 31/12/2016 13:15

Litigator here. This is all about tort. The question wants you to look at causation, remoteness and foreseeability. Have you covered these topics?

BahHumbuggle · 31/12/2016 13:17

Gotta love a problem question!

AuntJane · 31/12/2016 13:40

If I remember correctly from over 30 years ago (when I studied basics of law) you need to look at the 'Wagon Mound' cases, involving a harbour in which one ship was refueling and spilt fuel onto the water, another was loading cotton bales and dropped some into the oil-filled water, and a third was having some welding done and a flying spark set fire to one of the oil-soaked cotton bales, resulting in the entire harbour burning down. I believe the final ship was held responsible, and in your case I would sue the restaurant which was responsible for the chair, leaving them to sue further down the chain of events.

Benedikte2 · 31/12/2016 13:44

Lawyer retired many years ago. I think you'd sue the car driver whose insurance would take the case on his behalf (presuming he has 3rd party).
Pet shop could possibly be added as a party if in the circumstances the accident following escape of the dog was reasonably foreseeable.
Basically the car driver is liable in tort though not criminally liable for causing the accident. He swerved and hit the lamp post, which is a natural consequence of car hitting it. Subsequent damage caused by chair is also a natural consequence -- one wouldn't expect chair to fly through air but could expect lamp post to cause collateral damage.
If you picked up chair and used it as a weapon then restaurant would not be liable for any injury caused ergo the lamp post flicking it does not make absolves restaurant from liability. Plus, of course, you have not entered restaurant so the restaurant has no duty of care to you as a visitor.
If you sue the car driver his insurance company will be able to consider whether to in turn sue the pet shop. The pet shop's public liability insurance may cover injury caused by animals escaping from the property.
KISS here you should sue the driver for your injuries and consequent loss (loss of wages, medical expenses, emotional damage from the shock, extra assistance in the house etc etc) Where you left with any permanent damage scarring, brain damage etc as being unable to work for 4 months presupposes a Seoul head injury.
Good luck

Babieseverywhere · 31/12/2016 13:50

Not read everything yet.

I would say. You haven't entered the restaurant, therefore not yet a customer and therefore can not sue them.

The car driver should of done an emergency break not plough onto the pavement. Therefore sue him.

Car man could sue petshop for escaping dog but nothing to do with you or your case.

Only guessing based on "what would judge Judy do ?"

emmaluggs · 31/12/2016 13:57

I would say the proximate cause was the dog escaping therefore the pet shop would be liable

BellsaRinging · 31/12/2016 14:02

I think the car driver- it was their driving that caused the injury to you. That's potentially negligence. Then leave it to them to join the pet shop owners as co defendants/contributory negligence. Can't see any negligence on half of the restaurant or the lamppost owner but I suppose it's possible if a substandard lamppost/unsafe seating area. Am a lawyer but it's been about 100 years since uni!

BellsaRinging · 31/12/2016 14:04

Oh, and the contractual issue is a red herring-you don't need one for negligence. Something about a snail and ginger beer if I recall correctly. Donogue v Stevenson.

Temporaryname137 · 31/12/2016 14:13

See, op - all the varied answers above mean this isn't a case of finding the right answer. It's a case of looking at each one and establishing: is there a contract? Is there a general duty (tort)? If so, was it breached? Did that breach cause loss and damage? And if the answer to all these questions is yes, how do you quantify it.

The question is asking for this sort of analysis.

Remember that they chuck loads of stuff in there. As a new law student I remember being smug when I answered a brilliant question about murder. And by focussing solely on that, missed all the other crimes like burglary, assault, battery... Make sure you read every word of the question carefully!!

Ellisandra · 31/12/2016 14:20

With regards to BellsaRinging and not needing a contract for negligence...

That's my point about the workings out and the reason it happened before the person entered the restaurant.

The best answer will explicitly say, the person had not entered blah blah blah but it is not necessary to establish blah blah blah...

In problem questions, ALWAYS state the obvious!!

Klaphat · 31/12/2016 14:42

I would say the proximate cause was the dog escaping therefore the pet shop would be liable

Just from knowing the meaning of the word proximate, wouldn't the dog escaping be the rather more likely to be anything but the proximate cause? Isn't the dog the distal cause? As in, the ultimate cause?

SnatchedPencil · 31/12/2016 14:49

You would sue the person at the root cause, the owner of the dog or the pet shop itself if it was their negligence that allowed the dog to escape.

You could only sue the driver if they were being negligent, such as by speeding or being under the influence.

You could only sue the council for the streetlamp if it was installed wrongly or poorly maintained.

You could only sue the restaurant if their licence did not permit them to have chairs on the pavement, or they were in an unsafe place. But in any reasonable risk assessment they would not have been expected to predict the chain of events you suggest.

britbat23 · 31/12/2016 14:56

You sue the driver, who shouldn't have swerved to avoid the dog. Had the driver hit the dog, none of the rest of it would have happened.

And the dog's owner, conveniently still in the pet shop, could have replaced the smashed pooch without too much trouble.

The2ndSpartacus · 31/12/2016 15:01

if you can only pick one, I'd sue the car driver. he shouldn't have swerved if it wasn't safe to do so.

hmm. or maybe whoever was responsible for the dog. he started the whole thing. that's what their public liability is for. (does public liability extend to off the premises?)

The2ndSpartacus · 31/12/2016 15:09

damn. didn't realise this was an actual law question and lawyers had answered. listen to them, not me.

LittleBooInABox · 31/12/2016 15:11

The Pet Shop.

Yes accidents happen and it wasn't done with malice. However it if the digs owner who is in charge of them and responsible for them. So anything that happens as a result of there actions is the responsibility of the owner/pet shop.

Although I'd also question the structure of the lamppost, because normally they just kind of bend. Was it a metal or concrete one??

drinkingchanelno5 · 31/12/2016 15:41

Sue the dog.

Grilledaubergines · 31/12/2016 15:45

You sue restaurant, restaurant sues next person along etc . Same as if you had a 5 car bump in the car.

Swipe left for the next trending thread