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?

Dog owner was in the wrong. The dog damaged and ran off with a kids' toy. Sometimes things like that happen but the attitude of the dog owner is all wrong. They should have apologized immediately. To just try and leave without acknowledging what their dog had done is odd. Some people are very rude.

I figure the cars probably cost a few quid, owner doesn't want it damaged so should remove the temptation if the dog owner has told him it's a problem.

So one person's legimate use of the park has to be interrupted because dog owner can't be bothered to restrain his dog properly. That really is the epitome of dog-owner arrogance.

Dog owner is right. Man was warned.

Why is it OK for dog owners to dictate how other people use a public park just because they don't fancy keeping inadequately controlled dogs on leads?

Morally different from legally.

Legally, the dog owner is in the wrong and would have to pay for the toy car.

Morally, they are both behaving like narcissistic, entitled, passive-aggressive idiots.

The dog owner could have prevented the problem by putting the dog on the lead. The toy-car-driver could have prevented the problem by not going near the dog. Both of them were clearly more keen on clashing than on avoiding the clash.

If you were to change a few words and say
Dog owner said to the dad
"If your child child comes to close he will pick him up, run away with him and chew him."
Would that be acceptable??
Just because dog owner gave warning doesn't make it okay.
The park is for all to enjoy.
If she knew the dog would do this. It's lard should be on to keep it under control.

A dog owner giving warning about what their dog will do, does not absolve them of responsibility when their dog is out of control.

Dog owner should replace the car; her dog, her responsibility.

Man and boy probably had no idea it was the same dog, why would they remember either the owner or the dog when they’re playing and focussed on that? They probably met a few dogs between the two occasions they met that one and ha completely forgotten about the first time.

Because that is exactly the sort of question a judge will ask. That's why.

I didn't think I had to put this disclaimer on my post, it was simply a legal POV but - sigh - I am a dog lover, I have dogs (beagles no less, the most doggy of all the dogs) and I love them more than I love people, well, most people anyway.

But in all my years working as a solicitor, I am fairly confident that any judge will rule that in this case the dog was not in control of its owner at all times and she would be liable to pay for the damage done (and car owner man's costs).

There is an answer to OP's question and it's above.

I'm not saying I agree with it btw, but this is how this shit would go down in court.

Am I making you sigh again?

It's like my husband's here...

Perhaps there should be a sign that says:

"Dogs do not have to wear leads in this park, unless the owner lacks common sense"

Why let two boys play with their remote control cars when you know there is a risk of this happening? Especially as they were SPECIFICALLY told this could happen.....

Dog owner in the wrong and should apologise and pay for the damage.
Once the dog owner saw cars in the park and knew her dog couldn't be trusted around them, she should have put dog on the lead and not thought it was OK to just warn other people that her dog would destroy them if they didn't pick them up! It's a public place for all to use - her dog doesn't come first.

50/50 on this.

Remote control car Dad is a twat for ignoring dog lady’s warning about not driving the car close to her dog. He said ok then did it again? Goading the dog I think, maybe he fancied a new car? (Cynical)

Dog lady, although she was goaded really should have put her dog on lead when she knew it would likely go for the car.

If I were her though I wouldn’t pay, I’d let him take it to civil court and see who they say is to blame.

Sounds like both were as stubborn as each other though.

Letting him take it to court would be terrible advice.

It could also lead to the police getting involved (criminal damage).

She would lose (the statute is simply drafted - a judge won't have much in the way of wriggle room as the wording is so clear). Then she'll likely be hit with a money order for his costs too - along with her own.

No solicitor (even a crap one) would advise her to do anything other than pay for the car. I'd advise her to offer half first (her warning used as mitigation) but there is little doubt that in the eyes of the law she is in the wrong.

The toy-car-driver could have prevented the problem by not going near the dog. Both of them were clearly more keen on clashing than on avoiding the clash.

How do you make that out? It's clear the car users had gone off - OP just says that their paths happened to cross again later. As pointed out, they may not even have realised it was the same dog. And why should their legitimate use of the park be circumscribed on the off-chance that they will cross paths with the idiot who can't control her dog?

It was dogs-off-leads time. You can't wave a juice bone (i.e. toy) to a dog, then run after it, and expect all to be well.

The man and his son have learned a lesson.

(I have never had a dog).

why should their legitimate use of the park be circumscribed

You can't just use public space as you wish without thought and consideration for the other legitimate users. There needs to be give and take from everyone. So, the dog owner shouldn't say "you can't use your car anywhere I the park whilst I am here" and the car driver shouldn't drive their car past a dog.

Playing music is. Legitimate use of the park but you don't play it loud enough to annoy everyone.
Playing football is a legitimate use of a park but you don't do it near people sitting on the grass.
Riding a bike is a legitimate use of a park but you don't do it over someone's picnic.

When did people stop being considerate of others and taking responsibility for their own decisions? The car drivers were warned. The dog owner called their dog in close to give them the chance to pick the cars up for that short stretch and they chose not to. There is fault on both sides.

Dog should have been on a lead as it was not under the owner's control- irrespective of the boy chasing the dog rather than the reverse, the dog was out of control.

The dog would have been under control if the boy hadn't been chasing it. The owner would then have been able to retrieve the car. First rule of training a dog is never chase it - they think it's a game.

However, I would have recalled my dog and held her lead as soon as I saw the bloke with the car come along for a second time.

"However, I would have recalled my dog and held her lead as soon as I saw the bloke with the car come along for a second time"

Exactly.

It was that the dog got hold of the toy at all that puts the dog owner in the wrong.

The dog owner on seeing they were faced with an arsehole who was going to allow the car near the dog, they should have called the dog back and put it on the lead. Yes sometimes you need to accept idiots exist and you personally have to take action because even with a warning the other person won’t.

One of the parties had to prevent it, both were aware it was going to happen, both allowed it to. Stupidity all round.

"Stupidity all round."

I think that that's all that needed to be said!

Dog owner should have put her dog on a lead if she knew the toy cars were going to be a problem.

She lost control of her dog.

Replace dog with child (in law parents are not responsible for things children damage or destroy yet children can understand and are easier to "train" but when they break stuff and under the age of 10 they and there parents cannot be held accountable bitter exepernce of 9 year smashing my front window and parents shrugging shoulders saying kids will be kids and i cannot make via court the kids parents pay for damage

I hate dogs off leads in public places.

Remote control car Dad is a twat for ignoring dog lady’s warning about not driving the car close to her dog

So dog owners can control what all other park users can do, by threatening that their dog with destroy their property if they don't stop using it?
No. Dog owner knew the dog would want to play and probably destroy someone elses property, that they had every right to be using in the park, and should have put dog on lead to prevent it.

Warning someone your dog will destroy their property does not let you off the hook when your dog does destroy their property. If anything it makes you more liable because you knew it would happen and failed to prevent it, and failed to control the situation when it happened.

The dog owner needs to pay up.

The dog was not under control to be able to take the item in the first place.

If I said my dog will bite so walk near me that doesn’t make it not my fault of my dog bites the person walking past me.