Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Who was unreasonable?

409 replies

FiddleWiddiRiddim · 30/10/2017 12:56

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?

OP posts:
Babyblade · 31/10/2017 11:43

As a dog owner AND a RC car/plane owner ...

Morally - the car owner is in the wrong. Whenever you use RC vehicles in a community area you have to accept that dogs will find them irresistible.

Legally - the dog owner is in the wrong. As a dog owner you are liable for damage and accidents caused by your dog. THIS is why pet insurance for dogs is essential.

Good luck - hope your friend manages to get this resolved. A contribution to the damage sound reasonable but I don't think 100% payment would be fair.

UrsulaPandress · 31/10/2017 12:05

I have splinters in my backside.

I would have held my dog whilst the toy car went past but the car owner should have picked up the car as well.

I am trying to imagine a similar scenario if a horse rider was involved and the horse stood on the car................

And as for dogs and nudist areas Shock my dog loves a bit of bare flesh.

PuppyMonkey · 31/10/2017 13:46

Okay, I've followed this thread for a while now and I officially declare it a draw. Grin

Original poster
FiddleWiddiRiddim · 31/10/2017 14:37

Sisters I can't take credit for her name. She was rescued as a puppy by a completely batty but totally lovely woman who runs a local rescue centre. She named the litter after vegetables. We adopted Turnip when she was about 18 months old but there was also Spud, Beet, Parsnip and Brock (as in broccoli).

OP posts:
SonyaY · 31/10/2017 14:41

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ChuckysLoveChild · 31/10/2017 15:05

Nope car owner was being a dickhead.

Frazzaboo · 31/10/2017 17:39

Who is the victim? Is the question I always ask myself and kid missing a car is. Don't care if someone warns me not to speak in front of a dog as he will bite, I'll still talk.(excuse the analogy) The dog training is an issue and lack of lead obviously!

Madsy1990 · 31/10/2017 17:52

If the dog owner knows dog can't be trusted off a lead dog should have been on lead. Simple.

HeteronormativeHaybales · 31/10/2017 17:55

Dog owner in the wrong. She had no right to expect other people to adapt to her dog's poor behaviour/her lack of control of it. What if (sorry, horrible thought) the car had been another dog, or a child? Would the other dog's owner or child's parent have been at fault then?

Billben · 31/10/2017 17:57

If I was the dog owner, I wouldn't pay for the car. Dogs were allowed to be off lead at that time of the day and the car owner was warned what might happen. I hate it when people don't listen and have to learn the hard way yet still complain. If you hadn't warned the person, I might understand his issue, but you did. He just chose to ignore your warning.

Madsy1990 · 31/10/2017 18:00

Absolutely agree. Why should people have to stop what they're doing for someone else's dog? Lets put it this way - if a couple of blokes were playing with a remote control car and I said "don't come close, my child will have that off you and rip it to shreds" they'd tell me to control my child. Dog owner is an idiot.

PandorasXbox · 31/10/2017 18:06

How many of you would have ignored the dog owner and carried on regardless?

Only an idiot would. Anyone with sense would have just picked the cars up and let the dog pass.

Madsy1990 · 31/10/2017 18:12

Fair point, Pandora, but the dog should have been on a lead. Dog owner is still in the wrong.

jayne1976 · 31/10/2017 18:16

Man and car are wrong.
I don't like dogs off leads in parks, but if that's the parks rules fine and man was previously advised to keep it away from the dog

Antoniacaenis · 31/10/2017 18:17

Dog owner. They should be able to control your dog regardless of how exciting other people's toys are - or it should be on a lead. Like the owner who cheerfully let her dog attack our pram because "he always does that to wheels".

Tabetha123 · 31/10/2017 18:17

The car owner is being ridiculous. If the park allows dogs off the lead then he knew that damage to his toy was possible never mind the warning from the dog owner. Why did he chose to play with his toy in a public place if it was so valuable.

Antoniacaenis · 31/10/2017 18:23

Tabetha why should the rest of us have to avoid public parks because of unruly dogs. Why do dog owners have more rights to a public park than others? Dogs being allowed off lead is fine - but other park users shouldn't have themselves and their belongings out at risk for out of control animals.

Undercoverbanana · 31/10/2017 18:26

Doesn't sound like that dog is under control. Dog owner is U and should replace the car. What if it had been a small child the dog had gone for rather than a toy? I'd be seriously concerned about the dog in future.

However, car owner could have avoided the situation by not playing with the car near the dog, but he shouldn't have to be because the dog should either be trained or on a lead.

prh47bridge · 31/10/2017 18:28

Whilst they are both at fault, in law the dog owner is probably responsible. The fact that the dog owner warned the car owner what might happen means that the damage to the toy was reasonably foreseeable. The dog owner was therefore under a duty, in law, to make sure the dog did not damage the toy. The dog owner's failure to do so is therefore probably negligence.

pictish · 31/10/2017 18:31

Oh fgs...the dog owner is in the wrong. There's no debate. Her dog couldn't be controlled in a public space and it destroyed someone else's property. It is not for the dog owner to tell other people to modify their behaviour to appease her bloody dog! If the dog destroys toys then the owner had an obligation to put it on a lead when she saw the dad and son playing with them in the park.
She owes them some money. Silly bitch.

smilingontheinside · 31/10/2017 18:31

I'm a dog owner and think both wrong. Car owner was warned yet proceeded to "atagonise" dog by driving car by dog. Dog owner, if knows dog likely to grab car should have held dog when car came close (at this point I'd have probably been a bit less polite to car owner with my second warning). I keep my dog on lead as dreadful at recall but she would have been stressed out by a remote car driven by her. My dog has also been attacked by off lead dogs whose owners then blamed me because my dog growled when being pounced on. As for warning about biting and getting bitten if an owner warns you and you continue to touch any dog and you get bitten tough it's their only way of protecting themselves.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 31/10/2017 18:33

the dog is really well-trained, well-behaved and has great recall in normal circumstances. But a toy car zooming past wasn't normal ...

Thing is, there's always something which isn't "normal" for dog owners to blame:

"He wouldn't normally steal a picnic, but that one had more meat than normal"
"He doesn't normally bite, but that child's reaction to him wasn't normal"
"He wouldn't normally poo in the kiddie park, but the normal bag dispenser was empty"

FWIW I wouldn't have risked sending the car near him because I know how quickly dog owners' excuses get trotted out, but since the owner knew her dog was likely to grab she should have leashed it until they'd gone by

Lazy2Hazy · 31/10/2017 18:37

Dog owner wrong

Mummyoflittledragon · 31/10/2017 18:37

The dog would have been under control if the boy hadn’t been chasing it.

The op said the owner steered the dog away from the narrow path toward the bushes and yet it still managed to swipe the car. Therefore the dog was already out of control before the boy started chasing it.

I’m a dog owner. My dog is petrified of radio controlled cars.

ASAPWW · 31/10/2017 18:38

The dog owner is completely wrong...and sounds like a smug dog owner.

Swipe left for the next trending thread