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?

[FiddleWiddiRiddim]

As soon as the dog picked up the car, the owner called the dog. The dog stopped and looked back but the son set off at speed chasing the dog so the dog pegged it thinking it was all a big game.

No, I'm not the dog owner. I was walking with the dog owner. I also know the man though.

[BitOutOfPractice]

I'm assuming you're the dog owner OP?

I think dog owner is BU. Large out of control dog with poor recall, off the lead.

[FiddleWiddiRiddim]

The park allows dogs off-lead at particular times of the day.

[bluebell34567]

the dog owner warned them not to drive near the dog, the car owners ignored and drew the cars near the dog-annoying. she was expected to put lead on the dog but she warned them. the car owners should pay, they could say in the first instance when she warned them the dog should be on a lead. they acted as if they accepted the situation and annoyed her.

[stitchglitched]

Since when is it okay to destroy someone's property as long as you've warned the person it might happen?

[DadDadDad]

On a related note, I went for a walk with my children yesterday - woods / common with plenty of dogs off leads.

It was amazing how many dogs were able to bound up unexpectedly to my children (which my children were generally fine with, but I could see the occasional flash of anxiety) and even jump up at us, and the owner thought saying "it's OK, he's friendly, he won't hurt you" was all they needed to do. If at the very least I didn't want some muddy paws on my trousers, it doesn't matter how friendly you think your dog is!

[NoSquirrels]

Both, I'm afraid.

Yes dog owner warned man. But also didn't put the dog on a lead when they came past again.

At the end of the day, a dog destroyed a child's toy, so dog owner should be prepared to pay.

If I were dog owner I'd offer a token 50% (unless it were ridiculously expensive, then I'd offer something I considered reasonable for a toy the other person wasn't taking good care of!)

[flimflaminurjams]

All dogs and remote control cars should be on leads

That is all

[mrsm43s]

Dogs should be kept on the lead unless they can be controlled. Dog clearly not under control, dog owner should have put dog on lead the moment she saw the the car, as she was well aware that the she could not control the dog under those circumstances. (TBH as it appear dog does not have reliable recall, that particular dog should probably be on the lead at all times in public). Dog destroyed car, and therefore owner clearly liable to replace it. Warning someone that you don't have adequate control of your dog does not mitigate responsibility for their actions.

Car owner an idiot for going close after being warned, though.

[elfinpre]

I think the car owner has a cheek asking for payment when they were warned. Also I'd have put the dog on a lead while the car was around.

[MilkTwoSugarsThanks]

Dog owner is unreasonable. You can't expect people to pick their things up out of the dogs way because you can't control the dog. Dog should be trained not to pick up random stuff. The child running after the dog is not the child's fault - he just wanted his toy back and doesn't know how the dog's brain works.

[NoSquirrels]

The park says dogs can be off lead, tea, but laws says dogs must be under control - and in this instance as dog couldn't be recalled instantly, dropping the toy, the owner is in the wrong.

[RedSkyAtNight]

Dog owner in the wrong. Remote control car driver was doing something entirely reasonable and had a right to continue doing it without his property being destroyed.

If you replace "remote control car" by "small child's ball" maybe it makes it clearer.

[LazyDailyMailJournos]

He was being unreasonable.

He was told nicely to keep the car away from the dog and was warned about what would happen, but ignored this.

The dog was off lead in a space that allows this and otherwise minding his own business until the man steered his toy car close to the dog. If people have an issue with dogs being off-lead then don't use parks or spaces where this is permitted. In the same way that I wouldn't dream of taking my dogs to a dog-free park, or letting them run loose in an area where they have to be on the lead, people can't complain if they choose to use a space where dogs are allowed to roam freely.

Dog stopped initially when the owner called, but when the man's son chased it, the dog ran off. Why is nobody criticising the bloke for not keeping his child from chasing the dog? By the sounds of it if the child hadn't chased the dog then the owner could have retrieved the toy.

[PickleSarnie]

Why does the dog owner get to decide who does what? As summerkelly says above, what if the dog chases runners? Should no one be allowed to run in the park because the dog can’t be trusted not to run after then? There was a recent incident near me where a dog on a local path used by dog walkers and runners kept biting people as they ran past – that’s not the runners fault – it was most definitely the dog owners.

If a dog can’t be trusted not to chase after toys/people/other people’s property then it should be on a lead.

[Motoko]

Both at fault. He was warned about driving the car near the dog, yet ignored the warning.
However, if you can't keep the dog under control, and know what is likely to happen, you should have popped the lead on when you saw them coming towards you again. And instead of just 'walking calmly' until you caught up with the dog, that was wrong. Should have called the dog to you and got it to drop the car.

As for whether you should pay for the damage, hmm both at fault, offer half?

[flyingpigsinclover]

Dog owners have the responsibility to stop their dogs from injuring people or damaging their possessions so the dog owner was. However, it was pretty daft what the man and his son did as well so both were being unreasonable.
Chalk it up to experience, whichever side you are OP.

[ShiftyMcGifty]

I bet that sign doesn't say dogs can be off lead if the owners cannot control them. As soon as dog decided he was playing a chase game with a strange child, the owner lost control of it. Never mind the car, does the dog owner not realise her dog can't be off lead if she can't control it around small running children in the park?

[FiddleWiddiRiddim]

By the sounds of it if the child hadn't chased the dog then the owner could have retrieved the toy

The dog is well-trained and has very good recall but ran off this time because the son started to chase the dog.

The son was about 13, so not a very small child.

[Lottie509]

Both wrong, If I was the dog owner I would have put my dog on a lead. And if I was the person with the toy car I wouldnt have driven it near the dog.
All in all though I do think if you are a dog owner you should be a responsible one and always keep control of your dog if you recognise a potential incident could happen the lead should go on.

[elfinpre]

What about if it was a child, say and the parents were warned about not letting the child stroke the dog, and the child ran after the dog, stroked it, and the dog bit the child?

No doubt the law would come down on the side of the parent, the dog owner would be prosecuted and the dog possibly destroyed. But morally, what if it were a rescue dog being gradually retrained and resocialised?

[KarateKitten]

Imagine you were walking in the park eating a sandwich and some dog owner warned you to put it away as their dog would go for it if you passed anywhere nearby....

[HateHomework]

I instantly thought the man was in idiot cause he acknowledged her warning. However dog owner has to pay for something she's still responsible for 'something' otherwise their lovely dogs can bite a hand off and still not be responsible as they have a warning

[lalaloopyhead]

I'd say dog owner, if dog can't leave stuff alone it is probably best not to have it off the lead. Dog should drop something by command.

It was silly for the car owner to ignore so I can see why you might think they were a bit responsible, but at the end of the day you couldn't say well I warned you my dog would bite your leg off could you?

[Ceto]

The fact that the park allows dogs off lead clearly isn't carte blanche to allow a dog you can't control to wander unchecked and to damage other people's belongings.