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:
zen1 · 31/10/2017 19:48

Parks are public spaces. Even if dogs are permitted to be let off their leads, they are still the responsibility of the owner who should be able to control them.

Someonessnackbitch · 31/10/2017 19:50

Just because someone says ‘this is going to happen’ doesn’t make it ok.

Therealslimshady1 · 31/10/2017 19:53

Dog owner wrong for not controlling dog

If dog cannot be controlled, he should be on a lead.

Jux · 31/10/2017 19:55

Yes, of course dogs are welcome too, if they’re well behaved, don’t steal picnics or toys or anything else, bite children etc. I was making the point that parks are, first and foremost, for the benefit of people.

allegretto · 31/10/2017 19:56

Life lesson don’t be so arrogant in the future. Expecting other park owners to modify THEIR behaviour because you can't be arsed to modify yours and put your dog on a lead is the definition of arrogance.

pictish · 31/10/2017 19:58

" 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."

I would reply, "Then you had better put your dog on the lead then hadn't you? Or you'll be paying for a replacement."

On what planet is the dog entitled to destroy someone else's property? It's rampant arseholery to issue the warning in the first place, let alone refuse to pay!

Winebottle · 31/10/2017 19:58

The dog owner is responsible. Warning others does not take away that responsibility.

If you warned a child to stay away from the dog because it bites and the child ran near to it anyway and got mauled, you are responsible. You shouldn't have taken the dog off the lead.

The same goes for damage to property. It's your dog, you are responsible for the damage it causes. That is a liability you took on my owning a dog and letting it off the lead.

The car owners are free to drive it wherever they want.

Having said that, if he'd annoyed me, I probably wouldn't do the right thing. I'd tell him to jog on.

Quartz2208 · 31/10/2017 19:59

Both are at fault for the initial incident - both should have moved away from each other (dog off lead gets hold of toy car is not a complete surprise)

Her slow reaction is totally unreasonable and dare I say it unreasonable
Him trying to involve you (and the police) completely unreasonable - in this neither comes across as a nice person

Daddystepdaddy · 31/10/2017 20:01

A bit of blame on both sides here. The car people were warned so they could have taken precautionary action upon seeing the dog. The dog owner, although they warned the car people, still has the responsibility for keeping the dog under control and preventing it from causing damage to property. In short the car people should have given the dog a wider birth and the dog owner should have been proactive and put the dog on the lead while passing the car people.

Sprogletsmuvva · 31/10/2017 20:08

Sounds to me like the man was deliberately winding the dog up by driving his car at/near the dog, and encouraging his son to do the same. and any child over the age of 10 knows you don’t go chasing after a random dog when it’s got its ‘come and chase me!’ playful thang going on.

Dogs aren’t automata, and a large proportion will have a prey drive - it’s what many dogs were bred for. While I’d expect the dog owner to briefly keep the dog away from the cars while their paths brief cross, I’d also expect the car owners to keep the cars away from the dogbriefly - after all, what would it have cost them to do that or even carry the cars while they passed?

Joinourclub · 31/10/2017 20:09

Dog owner in the wrong imo. If she can't control the dog it should stay on the lead around others, especially in situations she has already identified as risky.

The dog is her responsibility and she should have put it in the lead once she saw the remote control cars.

Halloweenwitch · 31/10/2017 20:10

Parks are recreational areas for recreational pursuits which include dog walking and playing with toy cars. The dog was permitted to be off the lead.
The dog walker warned them the dog would take the car if the car came too close.
When she crossed them again she made an effort to to avoid a problem by calling the dog close to her. From the ops description the father and son made no such effort to avoid a problem as they continued to drive the cars in close proximity to the dog.
So the walker made an effort not to disrupt them, but they made no effort to avoid the dog and it’s owner on their own recreational pursuit.
So yes this is arrogance and showing no regard for other park users.

Halloweenwitch · 31/10/2017 20:19

So on that basis if I was the dogs owner I would have barely stifled a laugh after he asked for payment for doing something he knew would antagonise my dog Grin

ontherightpath · 31/10/2017 20:19

Dog owner definitely at fault.

hollowtree · 31/10/2017 20:22

Car owner! I used to work for a kennel. Well behaved dogs are allowed off lead. Well behaved means they are not a danger to anyone and the dog clearly likes people and being chased!

The car owner was told; dogs like toys and chasing things I'm afraid! Running after them makes them think you are playing too- so they no longer understand the command to return. The owner would have had more luck if the child hadn't joined in the running! So not their fault

sima74 · 31/10/2017 20:26

Definitely the dog owner, so tired of entitled dog owners letting their dogs off their leads in public spaces and thinking eveyone one else should have to dodge the mad uncontrollable dog. Children and their enjoyment take priority over dogs, end of.

Halloweenwitch · 31/10/2017 20:29

There is no rule that says families with children have more rights to enjoy a park than a person with a dog.

PurplePenguins · 31/10/2017 20:32

Owner of 2 dogs and 2 remote control car obsessed teenagers 😁. I personally think there is fault on both sides. Car owner was warned that the dog would destroy the car. Keep the car away from the dog, pick it up until the dog is passed and don't deliberately drive it at the dog. Dog owner knew the dog would destroy the car and should have put the lead on the dog until the cars had passed. Had either one done this then car would still be in one piece. People need to learn to share the space.

bluebird3 · 31/10/2017 20:33

What if the accidental damage to the car was caused by a person or a child? Say if a child on a bicycle accidentally ran into it, or somebody tripped on it as it zoomed past? Would you expect them to pay for it or would you accept that using a car in a public park is assuming some risk by the general public? The only way to be 100% sure wits safe is to use it on your own property.

I think that the child chasing the dog is what caused the damage, as the owner should have been left to deal with it. If the dog damaged it and ran from the owner, dog at fault. If the dog ran as was being chased by child, child at fault. We live in a country where dogs need a place to roam and all children should be taught to leave dog management to their owner as standard park safety. Both have a right to the park. Both should know how to interact with each other.

permatiredmum · 31/10/2017 20:33

The dog owner was in his rights letting his dog off lead. Car owner was in the right driving his little cars.BUT the dog broke the car so the dog owner is liable.If the cars had injured the dog the carowners would have been liable
The dog owner's 'warning' means nothing. As the one in control of the 'destructive force', the onus was on him to put the dog on a lead not expect the car people to curtail their activities!

Sarahrellyboo1987 · 31/10/2017 21:10

Both at fault but the dog owner should pay.

speedynamechange73 · 31/10/2017 21:15

It's remote control car day, there was also one at our local park today, luckily my dog had no interest in it.

But FWIW, if he had been, I'd have put the dog on the lead. Which is what I do whenever I think there is the need to do so.

Car man should have stopped the car when he was near the dog. Dog owner should definitely have put the dog on the lead.

Dogs are allowed at the park, off lead, remote controlled cars/planes/helicopters are not.

caringcarer · 31/10/2017 21:19

Disobedient and over excitable dogs should be kept on lead in public places. I have seen large dogs snatch ball from toddlers in park before. I wish dog owners would understand not everyone shares your love of dogs. I don't mind obedient dogs that just walk past you in park and mind their own business but I hate it when they run over to you and occasionally jump up and sniff you and will not go away. In this case the cars did not attack dog but dog attacked car.

Nikkibrad · 31/10/2017 21:57

Firstly why would you play with an expensive remote control car in a place where dogs are. They have a chase characteristic and right or wrong will be inquisitive about something like a car whizzing around. Mine have picked one up before at home. Lesson learned, keep dog away from car and don't aggravate dog by playing with it around the dog. If dog is friendly why shouldn't it be allowed off the lead. Car owner owns the car not the park. Both parties knew car and dog wouldn't have a compatible outcome so both should have taken steps not to bring about the situation

FontSnob · 31/10/2017 21:57

Car owner is in the wrong, its not like the car was on the other side of the park, they deliberately drove it right past the dog knowing full well the dog would take it. Sorry but thats your own stupid fault, the dog could have been on the lead and still taken it if it was that close.