Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
sunflowersandroses · 31/10/2017 18:40

Toy car owner! The woman warned the man. Not her fault and I wouldn't pay either.

pictish · 31/10/2017 18:42

She can't excuse the dog because the lad chased it - her recall has to be watertight. If it's not, which in this case it clearly isn't, the dog cannot be considered as under control. It doesn't matter how excited the dog gets, it must obey it's owner.

pictish · 31/10/2017 18:43

The woman warned the man? So what...she should have taken the initiative as a responsible owner and immediately put him on the lead. It is not for other people to be warned away!

AlternativeTentacle · 31/10/2017 18:48

I'm a dog owner and think both wrong. Car owner was warned yet proceeded to "atagonise" dog by driving car by dog.

It is a park. Unless it was HER park, owned by her then it is not up to her where other humans run their toys! It is her responsibility to control her dog.

Smudge100 · 31/10/2017 18:51

Dogs are animals and can't always be 'controlled'. They have impulses that are programmed by nature and can't be altered. There is nothing malevolent about the dog's actions, indeed dog is probably a very benevolent creature. I am not a dog owner myself but the dogs I meet on my daily walk greet me as if I am Jesus Christ incarnate. (Highly gratifying). Cars are ENTIRELY under the control of the owner. Dog owner warned car owner of possible consequences. Car owner ignored and paid the consequences. My advice to dog owner is to fight it out in court if need be. The courts will find in your favour.

pictish · 31/10/2017 18:59

IF SHE KNOWS THE DOG GRABS TOYS SHE SHOULD HAVE PUT IT ON THE LEAD!
Sorry to shout but it really is that simple. She didn't and it trashed someone else's toy. What sort of arrogance do you need to have, to think you get to issue a fucking warning rather than take responsibility for your dog...fuck off!

AlternativeTentacle · 31/10/2017 19:05

Dogs are animals and can't always be 'controlled'.

Yes that is why non-entitled [normal] humans put them on leads.

PandorasXbox · 31/10/2017 19:07

Bloody hell calm down Pictish.

Autumnskiesarelovely · 31/10/2017 19:09

Dog owner was right.

You should be able to recall a dog, however a racing around car is like asking a dog to ignore a ball.

pictish · 31/10/2017 19:11

Well it's preposterous isn't it? All these doggy people with their heads stuffed up their own backsides. There is no debate here. The dog ruined the toy so dog owner owes the man and son money or a replacement. Bloody 'warning' or not.

upperlimit · 31/10/2017 19:12

I honestly cannot understand how anyone could think the dog owner wasn't the one in the wrong.

Autumnskiesarelovely · 31/10/2017 19:15

But the dog owner made all reasonable attempts and did control his dog. He recalled it. Moved away and kept the dog close.

The car owners ignored his warning. And did not control their cars by letting them go near the dog.

Control their cars!!! Don’t these car owners have any obedience training anymore!

Jux · 31/10/2017 19:15

Parks are there for the benefit of people first and foremost.

People who live in areas where a public park is the only place available to exercise their dog should remember that when they first consider getting a pet.

For instance, gerbils don’t need parks.

SoupDragon · 31/10/2017 19:15

There is no debate here.

Thankfully we don't live in a society that bans debate.

Greebz · 31/10/2017 19:21

Dog owner in the wrong. I hate entitled dog owners like this, they need to control their dogs either by keeping on a lead or getting the dog to do as they say!!

0hCrepe · 31/10/2017 19:23

It’s the dog owner’s fault. If you know your dog is going to go for something that comes near then it’s your responsibility to anticipate that happening and control your dog. Warning people doesn’t mean you’ve covered all bases and can’t accept liability.
My dog used to grab a ball given the chance and run off. I made sure she couldn’t get close to one. Hilarious idea that if you warn someone what might happen you can just shrug off bad behaviour.

ton181 · 31/10/2017 19:24

Its a dog not a robot, how many have very well behaved children or adults, who still have the occasional wobble. I would say 50/50 the incident could have been prevented if either party had taken the appropriate action

0hCrepe · 31/10/2017 19:25

Oh and remote controlled cars aren’t that easy to control either, not for me anyway!

sayyouwill · 31/10/2017 19:30

It’s clear from how you’ve written the post who you believe is unreasonable.

In all fairness, the man and son may not have been paying attention to the owner and dog and not realised it was the same person/dog.

It would be nice if the dog owner offered to pay something towards the damaged toy, but as they are not solely responsible I don’t believe they should pay the full whack.

PandorasXbox · 31/10/2017 19:32

I would have definitely have put my dog on the lead in that situation but I also would have not been an awkward bastard and ignored the dog owner and left the cars on the ground! Grin

jarhead123 · 31/10/2017 19:33

To be fair if I were the dog owner I would have put my dog back on the lead/gone elsewhere as too risky

Halloweenwitch · 31/10/2017 19:38

Parks are for walking dogs if he was allowed to have him off the lead then the car owner was very unreasonable, they had been warned so it is entirely their own fault their car was damaged. Tough I would say. Life lesson don’t be so arrogant in the future.

pictish · 31/10/2017 19:43

Parks are for people...and dogs are also welcome as well. The park is not 'for dogs' - don't be daft.

luckyDuvet · 31/10/2017 19:46

Don't think I've ever seen a Mumsnet thread where the split was so 50/50 YABU/YANBU!!!

stitchglitched · 31/10/2017 19:48

Being allowed to have the dog off lead isn't a license for them to destroy property. The only arrogant one here is the dog owner for thinking that anyone who has the audacity to walk past her in a public park after she gave them a 'warning' deserves to have their possessions ruined by the animal she wasn't in control of.

Swipe left for the next trending thread