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?

Just to be clear, the sandwich isn't the problem, the uncontrollable dog is.

Dog owner is in the right.
I one ran over a remote control car in my vehicle as owners were driving it accross the road on a bend and I couldn't stop in time to avoid the thing as it wasn't visible until I came round the bend. I tried my best to stop as I thought it was an animal running accross the road at first.

Dog owner is BU. They clearly can't control their dog, else it would have dropped the car and come back to the owner when called. Dog owner shouldn't have to chase dog.

Therefore, since dog can't be controlled, it should not be off lead in any public situation until it can be.

Also, it is not okay for someone's property to be destroyed just because they were warned.

Dog owner should pay.

Dog sounds well-controlled in normal circumstances - not with some fuckwit zooming their toy car close by (after being advised of the potential outcome).

Weeds, I don't think that's comparable.

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

None of that is relevant to the fact that the dog picked up the toy in the first place, and then couldn't be recalled when, predictably, a small child tried to retrieve it.

The dog is well-trained and has very good recall

Nope, it quite clearly doesn't else this situation wouldn't have happened.

Stop making excuses.

Ceto I said in the last post (which you copied and pasted from) that the son was about 13, not a small child.

The dog is well-trained and has very good recall

Clearly not.

None of that is relevant to the fact that the dog picked up the toy in the first place, and then couldn't be recalled when, predictably, a small child tried to retrieve it.

I see now that it wasn't a small child. But exactly the same principle applies.

The dog is well-trained and has very good recall

I do still agree that the man was being unreasonable, but I don't agree that the dog has "very good recall" if being chased causes him to instantly enter play-mode and ignore recall commands. To me "very good recall" means that you can rely on the dog to drop whatever it is doing and return straightaway.

By comparison my old dog has reasonable recall - so he's only off lead if we're alone as I can't rely on him not bouncing up to someone. My younger dog has no recall whatsoever and consequently is never off the lead.

I think under the circumstances the prudent thing to have done would have been to have put the dog on the lead, when it became apparent that the man was ignoring the request to keep the car away from the dog. The 13 y/o child should have known better, but ultimately you can reason with a child more readily than you can a dog - therefore as dog owners we have a responsibility to assess the risk in a situation and ensure that we take measures to prevent our pets from hurting other people and their property, even if it is unintentional.

Dog owner in the wrong. Owner clearly knows dog is unreliable (hence issuing the warning). Owner should have held on to dog.

What if the dog chased runners? Or small children? Or dog likes to wee on legs or anything really? Can the dog owner just be excused because they gave a warning??

The dog wasn't under control though?
Hate hate hate dog owners who think that because their dog sometimes listens to them they are well behaved and under control
No, if you can't control your dog in every situation it is NOT under control and should be on a lead
😡😡😡😡😡

WhatToDo No, I'm not trying to make excuses. Other PPs have said the owner can't control the dog. I was just clarifying that the owner can usually control the dog, the dog's well-behaved and has good recall. The dog ran off this time because it was being chased by the son.

I blame the car people. They are aware dogs are off the lead at the time of day. If they want to run expensive equipment in a public place then they take the risk of it being damaged.

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.

But who is the dog owner to go around warning people that they need to behave in a particular way?

It’s up to the owner to ensure their animal doesn’t damage someone else’s property.

I’m pretty sure that allowing dogs to be off the lead at certain times doesn’t equate to cancelling any liability the owner has for the dog’s behaviour.

If the car owner had warned the dog walker that they might crash their car into the dog and injure it, would it be reasonable to say the owner ‘had been warned’ when the dog got injured, so it’s hard luck?

The onus is on the dog owner when they see something their dog can't be controlled around to put their dog on the lead.

The dog owner should have put the dog on the lead.

Both, but if I have to say one, I'd say dog owner is in the wrong.

Dog owner is wrong.

What if you were on a main road and you knew your dog chased cars, would you put the dog on the lead or expect all the cars to stop and wait for your dog to finish it's walk??

Dog owner is wrong. By all means have dog off lead as is permitted but only if dog has proper recall which this dog doesn't. And chasing him, if dog was properly trained the owners command would have got him to stop and drop immediately.

Dog needs better training or to be kept on a lead.

A warning simply isn't sufficient. What if they hadn't understood or heard? Or it had been 2 children, not parent and child.

I think that if you want to let your dog off the lead in a public space, you need to be able to control it. If you know it might destroy something put it on a lead. What next? If you ride that bike, play with that ball, eat that picnic, bring your dog over here then my dog will destroy it?

They weren't following the dog around with the car though, they were just minding their own business and happened to cross paths a couple of times with a dog that wasn't under adequate control. It is pure arrogance on the part of the dog owner to recognise that their dog may damage property, do nothing to prevent their dog from doing so and then refuse to pay for the damages because other people using the park should get out of her dog's way.

I don't think any dog can be trained so well that it reacts to nothing and people have a duty to behave responsibly around dogs as well as the owners having a duty to behaving responsibly. People can be carefully retraining a rescue dog bit by bit and some other idiot could ruin that in an instant.