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:
Sparklyglitter · 31/10/2017 22:11

Dog owner is right! Man sounds totally entitled! He’s living in a world which he has to share!

Shaz380 · 31/10/2017 22:22

I’m afraid as a dog lover I’m going to be on the side of the dog owner as the man was warned and had acknowledged the problem. He should have picked up the cars if it was a narrow path. I meet too many arrogant people on a daily basis so no sympathy for the man who chose to ignore the warning. It’s not exactly a safe place to be playing with remote cars if other members of public are using the pathway.

YoloSwaggins · 31/10/2017 22:30

Dog owner is at fault - if you can't control it to the extent that it destroys people's property, keep it on a leash.

You shouldn't have to warn people your out-of-control dog will eat their toys! How is that even an option?? What next - telling children not to throw frisbees, play with kites or balls because your animal will go after them? No. People have the right to cycle/run/play with cars without getting attacked by dogs.

Eveforever · 31/10/2017 22:31

The dog can still get a walk if it's on a lead. The father and son can't play with their cars if they are carrying them. If anybody was acting entitled it was the dog walker expecting two people to stop what they were doing because she wouldn't put her dog in the lead.

The biggest issue with the man's behaviour is that he is now hassling you which is rather unfair.

YoloSwaggins · 31/10/2017 22:32

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.

Exactly - warning people you're about to commit a crime doesn't make it OK to commit a crime.

Bargainqueen · 31/10/2017 23:07

If I had a dog and I knew it would pick up items and ruin them, then I would remove the dog from the situation or put him on a lead until out of sight.
To me this us a bit nuts. It's like someone saying
'Be careful my dog likes to chew little children as he thinks they're toys...' then still keeping the dog unleashed and telling the parents 'I told you so'
That said as the car owner I would not rely on the dogs owner to prevent this from happening, because price don't care. So I would have told my child to pick the car up until the dog had gone.

Bargainqueen · 31/10/2017 23:08

people don't care

Lilmisskittykat · 31/10/2017 23:19

Always get a slightly squiggled view on here as there is a general dislike and fear of dogs.

It sounds like they were warned and if it’s the designed time dogs are allowed off the lead it sounds like she had no choice when she could exercise her dog if she wanted to use the park.

It’s just one of those things, I don’t think the dog owner was in the wrong. As soon as it became a game of chase it would be hard for most people to break a dog from the game.

But in the same respect they could probably have easily avoided one another.

Pregosaurus · 31/10/2017 23:21

Car owner WBU. Dogs chase toy cars. Dog didn’t hurt anyone, owner was asked to be considerate, shit happens.

To all the idiots saying dogs need to be on leads in public places, go and boil your heads. Yes, there are a lot of irresponsible dog owners with moronic untrained animals and they should be whacked over the head and made to go on dog obedience courses, but there are plenty of people with perfectly well trained animals who need exercise.

hks · 31/10/2017 23:35

the man and his son could have went somewhere quieter to play with their toys car if it is a park regulary used with dog walkers
but the dog owner could have put the dog on a lead when near kids / families ... i think it should be put down to a bad experience they could claim on insurance but i think police would have had to have been involved

Charolais · 31/10/2017 23:39

The boy should have let the dog owner get the dog under control and not interfered. Other than that - shit happens.

lolalola19 · 31/10/2017 23:48

Dog owner is right - you did say they are allowed to be off the lead at that time in the morning and the owner did warn them, they then went very close to the dog again knowing what might happen. Serves them right IMO.

lolalola19 · 31/10/2017 23:52

FontSnob and Shaz380 I agree 👍

HicDraconis · 01/11/2017 00:20

If my dog picked up a toy and damaged it while off lead I would consider myself responsible for replacing the toy. In the same way if my child damages something (whether by accident or design) while at someone else's house, I will replace it as anything he does is my responsibility.

The dog owner is clearly at fault here for not controlling the dog adequately when realising that they were in the vicinity of RCcar family again. The RCCar family should not have to be looking over their shoulder every 30 seconds to see if a dog is approaching; the dog owner on the other hand does need to be constantly on alert to watch where the dog is and what it's doing.

(DOI: owner of two dogs with "reasonable" but not perfect recall, off leash only on the designated part of the beach - and no RCCars in the family).

AlternativeTentacle · 01/11/2017 01:15

To all the idiots saying dogs need to be on leads in public places, go and boil your heads. Yes, there are a lot of irresponsible dog owners with moronic untrained animals and they should be whacked over the head and made to go on dog obedience courses, but there are plenty of people with perfectly well trained animals who need exercise

You need to boil your own head then, as the 'moronic untrained animal' is the one in the OP which should not be off the lead. You just proved the point that it was the dog owners fault.

Fluffywhitecloud · 01/11/2017 01:20

Dad and son sound like idiots.

Kerala2712 · 01/11/2017 02:53

Not many dogs would return immediately when wound up and chased by small boy/toy however well trained. Any dog will react to enough provocation- doesn't mean they all need to be on leads. Only those without/who don't like dogs say that as they don't know what they're on about. The best way to get a dog to come back/relinquish toy is to be calm/walk up to it calmly- owner doing right thing not 'smug'. Otherwise becomes a game of chase (as it did). Sounds like car owner was being an idiot. However i fear law probably on car owners side. On the other hand- can't make dog owner pay, dog owner allowed to be there, NOT the same as dog attacking person/child as some fool said earlier. If I'd seen them coming second time I'd have probably put my dog on a lead until they were out the way, andbeen grumpy about their inconsiderateness. Presume some risk of seeing them again, so some care needs to be taken for own/dogs safety, and also presume no cctv and no proof your dog did anything, so like to see them try. All sounds very unfortunate and stressful. Dog owner could have been a bit quicker with lead, car owner could have not been a twat.

Kerala2712 · 01/11/2017 03:28

Just seen boy was 13ish- should know not to chase dogs (for his own safety and that of dogs). If it was me I'd be really scared of meeting them again (but maybe I'm a wimp)

BrioAmio · 01/11/2017 03:50

Hmmm, six of one, half a dozen of the other. Dogs should be under control in public place (the law) which this one clearly wasn’t, the owner of the car was warned but equally owner of the dog could have put it back on the lead.

If the damaged car had been another dog or a child for instance the dog owner would have been at fault and it would have been quite clear cut. An interesting ethical dilemma!

MrsCrabbyTree · 01/11/2017 04:09

A dog owner should put the needs of the animal as their priority. Humans have the capacity to think ahead and realise that this particular scenario had a high probability of happening. A dog should not be put in the position of having to restrain its natural instinct just because the owner thinks they have the right to have the dog lead free. I would have put my dog on the lead, to have a lovely stress free walk. Tomorrow is a new day where you can hopefully enjoy a lovely lead free walk.

And yes, the car owner should have used common sense and picked up the car when they got close to this dog and/or any dog.

The dog owner should have offered to pay. People have more rights than dogs. (and I really love dogs ..... and cats)

Tweez · 01/11/2017 07:06

At the end of the day, the dog destroyed the car and the owner of the dog should pay. I noticed that after their paths met initially, later on they crossed again. The owner of the dog should have seen this was going to happen and walked the dog in another direction.

SherbrookeFosterer · 01/11/2017 07:22

The dog should pay.

AmIAWeed · 01/11/2017 07:43

As a dog owner I think it really is the dog owners responsibility to pay. Both people were in the park using it for the right reasons, god knows how much debate there would have been if someone dare use a remote control car on a path/road!!

If I think someone around me is acting irresponsibly, either not having their dog on a lead or doing something that would get my dogs attention it's my responsibility to manage the situation the best I can in regards to my dog, which would mean putting him on a lead and steering clear of the potential situation.
You should always assume you are dealing with an idiot until you know for sure.

As for the comment about the 13-year-old boy should know better, actually, he shouldn't, if he doesn't have a dog how will he know how they behave? In the same way yesterday a horse rider was complaining about a cyclist- just because its common sense to one person doesn't mean it will be to another, which is another reason why it is the dog owners responsibility.

Kerala2712 · 01/11/2017 08:28

Parents (dog owning or not) have a responsibility to teach children that to run up to /after an unknown dog is dangerous and unkind- that's common sense. ALL CHILDREN and ALL DOGS.

Kerala2712 · 01/11/2017 08:28

To clarify- responsibility to their child to teach them how to stay safe in public.