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?

[QuackPorridgeBacon]

The dog owner called the dog away when she seen the car, the car man and boy continued to steer the cars closer still. Therefore the car owners are at fault. Especially for chasing he dog when the situation was being dealt with by the dog owner. I think the law would side with the car owner though, unfortunately.

[opedious]

The dog owner has to keep the dog under control at all times. Lead or no lead that dog was not under the owners control. No excuses she aught to pay.

[MinervaSaidThar]

@Stefmay

Do the right thing and pay up, OK.

Just because you knew your dog would take the toy does not make you in the right.

If you can't call your dog to heel then maybe it should be on a lead.

Who are you talking to? The dog owner isn't on the thread.

[peanut2017]

Onyourtoes if you don’t have good recall fo your dog then no they shouldn’t be off their lead IF you think they will react to something.

I walk in my local park every day and see good and bad behavior. Dog walkers let their dogs off the lead (despite the no dogs off the lead sign) and dogs owners with good recall to their dogs don’t have a problem however others you don’t sometimes let them run everywhere and have seen them go for people / small children.

In this situation the dog owner could have put the dog on the lead when they met the boy and father.

Not sure how you know the child was entitled

[StefMay]

Dog owner at fault. Do the right thing and pay up, OK.

Just because you knew your dog would take the toy does not make you in the right.

If you can't call your dog to heel then maybe it should be on a lead. I had German shepherd so I'm no dog hater.

Small toy could be a toddler's face next time....

[cupcake007]

Car owner was warned by dog owner. Car owner ignored warning. Car owner is a dick. Yep, I'm a dog owner. 😜

[Onyourtoes]

Peanut - dogs need to get their heart rate up. Same as humans should. It would be a basic need of a dog and if you couldn’t meet this need it would be cruel to keep one.
You said dogs shouldn’t be off their lead in a public space. That would mean all dogs weren’t having their basic needs met if this was the case.
Entitled kids shouldn’t feel that everything should revolve around them and they should have picked up their toys. The owner called the dog over to them. If the father and son had of made some effort also by temporarily picking up their toy then the situation would be avoided with give and take from Both parties.

[peanut2017]

Onyourtoes not silly at all just a different opinion to yours. If you know your dog is doing to react to something then I’m sorry it’s your responsibility to put them on their lead when you sense something could happen.

Didn’t think dogs needed to always be off their lead to get exercise?

[RoseLillian]

It sounds by the way it's worded you believe the dog owner is in the right. I totally disagree (while I don't deny the car owner was silly). Just because a dog is allowed off a lead in an area doesn't mean they should be off a lead. It is up to the owner to assess if their dog can be trusted. I have a relative who owns dogs who are so well trained that they really don't need a lead at all. However if you have a dog who is likely to act in a way that can be considered in any way antisocial then it should be on a lead. I certainly think damaging someone else's property falls into this category. What's more the dog owner obviously knew that this was a problem in the fact she felt the need to warn the car owner, yet still chose to let her dog off the lead.

[Onyourtoes]

*equally as silly as saying

[Onyourtoes]

Every open space is a public place unless you have acres and acres of your own land you so where would you sugggest excercising them peanut?
That’s equally as silly as children and adults shouldn’t have annoying toy cars in public places.

[peanut2017]

Dog owner at fault - dogs should be on leads in a public place

[thecatsabsentcojones]

NataliaOsipova I don't think you meet my criteria of mumsnet dog loathers with that comment, in the previous dog related post I saw there was mass hysteria about them. A polite apology is definitely the way forward.

[NataliaOsipova]

But most people tend to realise that toddlers can do silly things and make the according allowance for the odd blip in behaviour, not the mumsnet dog loathers though.

Not sure that’s true. Someone’s dog comes and licks me and I recoil. Owner pulls the dog back and apologises. It’s no problem. Same as if someone’s toddler runs into me. It happens. No big deal. A lot of the time, however, the owner marches up stating “He’s just being friendly”. I see that as the same as an entitled parent saying “he’s just having fun running around”. In both cases, what’s needed is a polite apology.

[famousfour]

Thecats.

If my toddler destroyed property I would also pay for it - whether the behaviour was understandable from a young child or not.

[famousfour]

Hmm. On balance the dog owner is responsible. She should have put the dog on a lead or held the collar whilst the remote cars passed. Issuing a warning the dog will destroy property does not absolve her of responsibility, in circumstances where they have behaved in a reasonable fashion (e.g. Did not stalk the dog) It seems the car people could have been more sensible also and lifted their car whilst the dog passed (and been less of a tit to you). I don't think that makes her less responsible though.

[prh47bridge]

If you think the dog owner is at fault it may, of course, be because you know the law. I don't hate dogs. I do know the law. On the facts presented the dog owner is legally at fault and is liable for the damage done to the remote control car.

[Eveforever]

So, if you think the dog owner is at fault you must hate dogs? By that logic, if you think the car family are at fault you must hate males or cars!? And if people disagree with you they must be mean and/or stupid? Well I love dogs (and only sometimes like males!) but I still think the dog owner is the most culpable. The dog owner knew the dog might have a problem with the cars and although she did warn the family, that doesn't absolve her of any responsibility for the damage caused. The dog can still get a walk if it's on the lead, the car family can't play with the cars if they are having to carry them. However, the car man definitely shouldn't be taking it out on the OP.

[pictish]

I like dogs very much...but I'm not so fond of some of their owners.

[thecatsthecats]

Going invoke Godwin's law. Hitler was a dog lover. It's not a great arbiter of character.

[AlternativeTentacle]

I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t like dogs. Just saying

Liking dogs does not make you trustworthy - bit of stupid logic there. Ie dog likers can't always be trusted to use a lead where necessary.

[messyjessy17]

I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t like dogs. Just saying

I don't trust anyone who doesn't trust anyone who doesn't like dogs. Because its such a stupid thing to judge people on.

[Onyourtoes]

I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t like dogs. Just saying

[thecatsabsentcojones]

Shame that dogs aren't machines really given the lack of understanding on this post. They are animals, sometimes they do daft things - just like kids. But most people tend to realise that toddlers can do silly things and make the according allowance for the odd blip in behaviour, not the mumsnet dog loathers though.

Had it been one of my dogs I'd have probably grabbed their collar whilst the people went past (probably muttering swears under my breath at the fact they'd ignored my warning), so the dog owner could've done a bit more. But the bloke was warned and they chose to ignore it.

[NataliaOsipova]

Parents (dog owning or not) have a responsibility to teach children that to run up to /after an unknown dog is dangerous and unkind

I agree with you, Kerala. But the converse should be true: dog owners (parents or not) have a responsibility to make sure their dogs do not run up to/after an unknown child.

Drives me mad. My children would never approach a dog unless explicitly invited to do so (and even then, they don't really like them). But the number of people who allow their dogs to come up to my children - and then say, in a slightly superior tone "oh, are they scared of dogs?" or "oh, he's only be friendly" drives me mad. I just say "Not scared just not liking/we don't want him to be friendly as none of us like dogs". And people cannot comprehend this somehow....