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?

[Waddlelikeapenguin]

Both behaved badly but dog owner did not have their dog under control so they were wrong.

[ShoesHaveSouls]

I want to be on the side of the dog owner, because I am one

And I hate those electric cars zooming around...can't remember where we were recently, but someone was zooming those things around - really close to us. It was annoying.

But I think Judge Judy would say dog owner? I'm not sure though. It's not clear cut though - maybe 50-50 would be fair.

[whiskyowl]

I think the dog owner is under no obligation to replace the car - she warned the people that it shouldn't be driven near to the dog. If you insist on driving around remote control cars in a public space, you have to expect that random things can happen to them like this, as a result of the array of interactions that are possible in a place that's open to all.

[FiddleWiddiRiddim]

But I think Judge Judy would say dog owner?

It really made me smile that you used Judge Judy as your barometer. I might start doing that with everyday situations. What crisps do I want with lunch? Judge Judy would say Salt 'n' Vinegar

[elfinpre]

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

Why the hell shouldn't they? What if it was a child shooting a cap gun? Most animals would freak out at that. It's not just a case of anything goes in a public place. Everyone has a responsibility to one another.

[lunar1]

The dog owner is in the wrong. They were in the park knowing that there was a situation that would cause the dog to act out of control, at this point they should have kept the dog on the lead.

[PuppyMonkey]

I don't think you can blame it all on the son chasing the dog either. What are they supposed to do, stand perfectly still, smile politely and let the dog have the car? You can't expect other people to instantly know what does and doesn't work for your dog in these situations.

[lalaloopyhead]

In the example of the cap gun though, I would have thought that in that instance a dog owner would put the dog on the lead knowing their dog will react badly. However annoying you can't ask someone to stop doing something because your dog won't like it surely?

Obviously this excludes behaviour directed at the dog itself.

[Ceto]

People can be carefully retraining a rescue dog bit by bit and some other idiot could ruin that in an instant.

Surely people retraining rescue dogs have to take that into account? If the rescue dog goes for said idiot and attacks him, it won't be a defence that you were in the middle of retraining it.

[Inertia]

Both in the wrong.

Man and son should have kept the cars away from the dog.

Dog should have been on a lead as it was not under the owner's control- irrespective of the boy chasing the dog rather than the reverse, the dog was out of control.

Re cost, the fairest way would probably be to split the difference.

[Notevilstepmother]

I think both are partly responsible. Having been warned car man was reckless to continue to drive the car near the dog, but given the situation it would have been sensible of dog owner to put the dog on the lead when she realised car man was being uncooperative.

If I was dog owner I might offer to pay 1/3 of the cost, as 2/3 or the responsibility is with the boy chasing the dog away, and the man driving the car near it in the first place.

[SilverSpot]

Properly trained under control dog would have dropped the car before it was destroyed.

This.

If you can't control your dog it shouldn't be off lead. Letting your dog destroy something - a toy car, a football, a small child... is not having your dog under control.

[DavidBowiesNumber1]

OP how was it left?

I have visions of him getting very cross with Dog Woman but what did he actually do if she outright refused to pay?

[GhostlyKiwi]

I also think both were unreasonable. Dog owner should have put dog on lead in the presence of something it was likely to chase. Car owner was an idiot for continuing to drive car near dog. Son was silly for chasing the dog.

But the dog owner was sensible to walk after the dog calmly once it started running, or the dog would have thought she/he too was joining in the chasing game.

I think the dog owner should offer something like £20 to replace the car.

[ShoesHaveSouls]

It really made me smile that you used Judge Judy as your barometer.

I know! I frequently think WWJJD? in day to day decision making

[Ttbb]

The man child with the cars was at fault.

[upperlimit]

as 2/3 or the responsibility is with the boy chasing the dog away

No. The boy isn't responsible for the damage the dog did by attempting to retrieve his own property. The dog and its owner are responsible for that.

[QuiteUnfitBit]

Would their dog insurance cover this accident?

[Amaried]

Legally the dog destroyed the boys property so is definitely liable. Morally they were both wrong but your friend will have to pay up I'm afraid.

[Topseyt]

Some fault on both sides.

For me though, most of the fault lies with the twatty toy car drivers. They were given fair warning of how the dog would react, which they even acknowledged. They then proceeded to ignore the warning. Dickheads! So they certainly hugely contributed to the problem.

I do think though that when the dog owner saw the car drivers getting nearer for the second time she should perhaps have put the dog back on the lead for a few minutes until they were past. It is what I would have tried to do as a dog owner myself.

I'd be reluctant to pay because they did behave like twats and had had fair warning. That is probably wrong of me and I should offer a token amount, but I get where your friend is coming from.

I do control my dog in parks, public places and around people and children. I have to say though that not all parents have always controlled there children around my dog, including one who let her toddler hang onto his tail while I had him walking nicely on the lead. In the end I had to react before my dog did and sharply told the toddler to get off.

It can be very frustrating, even when you try to do all the right things.

[thecatsthecats]

I don't think the son being 13 has anything to do with it, or 18, or flipping 45. Dog behaviour isn't necessarily common knowledge, and not everyone will know that chasing a dog might make it think it's playing a game.

Heck, if I dropped something in the park yesterday and a dog picked it up, I may well have chased it!

The dog owner should suck it up, their pet caused damage.

[KarateKitten]

Lol, the responsibility is with the lady who chased the man who stole her bag because it made him run faster😂

[iJustReallyLikeIt]

The do owner is responsible for damaged property.

The owner knowing what the dog is likely to do makes them even more morally liable and certainly doesn't diminsh their liability in the eyes of the law.

[onemorecupofcoffeefortheroad]

I am a dog owner and if that were my dog I would be apologising and offering to pay for the damage.

[FiddleWiddiRiddim]

The dog owner walked calmly over to the dog because she knew that in his hyped-up state (after having acquired a new toy and thinking the son was playing with him) if she'd have gone quickly the dog would've legged it again thinking it was all part of the game.

What I mean about being well-trained is that the dog is really well-trained, well-behaved and has great recall in normal circumstances. But a toy car zooming past wasn't normal and that's why the dog went into play mode.

I'm not defending or making excuses. I'm not the dog owner here

The dog owner told the man she wouldn't be paying as (a) he didn't take care with the toys on such a narrow path around the dog even after she'd warned him and (b) her dog only chewed up the toy because the son chased him. She put her dog on the lead, walked out of the park and that was that- in her car and away.

The man then turned to me about her unreasonableness. He told me I needed to call her, get her back to the park and get her to pay. I refused. He told me he was going to call the police and report both of us.