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?

[upperlimit]

If the dog owner had put their dog - which they had predicted would wreck the car- on the lead this wouldn't have happened.

[ravenmum]

My dog loves balls and would grab any ball she saw if I let her. So if I see a child playing with a ball I quickly put her on her lead, to make sure their ball doesn't get damaged. I would not tell a child to stop playing with their ball, as I would feel like a real spoil-sport. Making them stop playing just because I happen to be in the park would look as if I thought my dog walking came before their fun.

[AnnabelFan]

Car owner...he'd been warned as had the son who op says was about 13. Dog owner made it clear what would happen but car owner ignored him.

[MehMehAndMeh]

70-30 more fault for toy car owner.

The dog owner should have put the dog on the lead when she saw them approach with no sign of picking up their car. Purely because now they have identified themselves as dense fuckers who believe everyone else has to monitor their behaviour and not them. I just couldn't be doing with the inevitable ear ache.

The father and child should have picked up the cars as they are ultimately responsible for their own equipment and had previously been warned there was a chance of this happening.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when he reports this one to the police and how he answers the question "When you saw the dog approach,(who you had already been warned may destroy your property) why did you not take steps to protect your property, like picking it up, rather than inflame the situation?"

[ThroughThickAndThin01]

Dog owner is (mainly) right,

[Fraying]

I don't understand why you were involved? Why did the toy-car owner think you could call the dog owner?
Anyway, the dog owner is at fault. If they knew their dog couldn't be trusted beside the toy then they should have put the dog on the lead. You can't ask other people to compensate for your dog being unable to behave in a public space. It was irresponsible. Not only from the pov of it meant someone else's property was destroyed but from the pov that the dog could have hurt itself whilst wrecking the toy car.

[MrsExpo]

Dog should have been called to heal and put on lead and restrained from even attempting to grab the car, so dog owner wrong there. Car owners should have stopped driving their toys and picked them up til dog well out of the way, given they knew the dog may have issues, so car owners wrong as well. Neither owned the space, neither had more rights than the other. Both are culpable. As for who pays for the damage, I think car owner needs to suck it up and be more aware in future, and use their toys in a place where they were not likely to encounter problems or cause issues for others. But, dog owner needs to ensure that dog is never in that position in future as they know the dog has issues in public spaces. Knock for knock I think.

[stitchglitched]

Why do posters think a warning absolves the dog owner of responsibility? If anything it just shows that she new the risk her dog posed and ignored it.

[AlternativeTentacle]

Parks are where dogs are going to be off the lead.

dog off lead fine. dog off lead and unable to be controlled, and destroy property not fine. dog owners do not own parks and need to wind necks in.

[upperlimit]

Yes, I don't think 'he'd been warned' would hold much weight in a small claims court.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

Both at fault

Both should have taken steps to avoid each other, if i was dog owner I would have apologised and offered to pay as I feel that part and parcel of being responsible is if you see something that you know is going to get a negative reaction from the animal you have a duty to control the animal and the means to do so existed (lead)

[sinceyouask]

What MrsExpo said.

[FiddleWiddiRiddim]

I don't understand why you were involved? Why did the toy-car owner think you could call the dog owner?

Sorry, I wasn't clear about that at all.

I use the park every day to walk my dog. I know the dog owner through bumping into her with our dogs and chatting over the years. I also know the man distantly (as in, I know him to say "hello" to but I don't know him as a friend or colleague).

When the dog owner put her dog on the lead and left the park, she said something like "See you again soon and good luck with the decorating", basically something you'd say to someone you know so the man assumed, rightly, that I knew her.

[Booboostwo]

The dog owner is at fault because she had already seen the car and knew the dog would go after it. If children were playing with a ball should they have put it away because a loose dog will generally recall but not from balls? If people were having a picnic should they have put their food away because the dog generally recalls but not from food?

If the dog and car had come across each other unexpectedly it would have been bad luck but the dog owner knew the car was there and that her dog would destroy it and still didn't put the dog on the lead. She also created a potentially dangerous situation with a child chasing a dog and trying to get the car off the dog.

[TsunamiOfShit]

100% dog owner. He/she knew what the dog was going to do and chose to still not put it on a lead.

[Oakmaiden]

Ibbleobbleblackbobble Mon 30-Oct-17 14:02:39
dog owner is right..... they were warned....they chose not to listen.......
if you were telling your child not to do something or there will be a consequence and they carried on.....what would happen???


Gosh, you are so right. I warned you not to go out wearing that short skirt - I told you what might happen. You only have yourself to blame.

[WyfOfBathe]

Dog owner made it clear what would happen but car owner ignored him
Does this apply in all circumstances? "My dog will take your picnic if you don't pack up"? "My dog will bite your child if she eats sweets"? "My DC will torment your cat if you don't shut her out"?

[snash12]

Remote control car owner was warned. Son chased dog. They're at fault.

[snash12]

@Oakmaiden

**Ibbleobbleblackbobble Mon 30-Oct-17 14:02:39
dog owner is right..... they were warned....they chose not to listen.......
if you were telling your child not to do something or there will be a consequence and they carried on.....what would happen???

Gosh, you are so right. I warned you not to go out wearing that short skirt - I told you what might happen. You only have yourself to blame.

Really? FFS.

[BitOutOfPractice]

Why do posters think a warning absolves the dog owner of responsibility? If anything it just shows that she knew the risk her dog posed and ignored it.

This

[user1471459936]

The dog owner sounds like a complete twat. Of course they were at fault. I hope the car owner does go to the police. Dog owners need to take responsibility for their pets.

[ButchyRestingFace]

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.

Lol, I can just picture the scene.

**

Both were to blame and the dog should have been on a lead if it won't listen to commands.

Not much sympathy for the car owner though.

[flamingnoravera]

The dog owner is in the wrong. The dog owner should always be able to control their dog. I have watched too many Judge Judy shows. The dog did the damage, the dog was off the lead, ergo, the dog owner is responsible.

[Giraffey1]

I think both parties should share the blame. The car owner was wanred and acknowledged the risk. Dog owner should have kept dog away from -twattish- car owner.

[trixymalixy]

Dog owner is totally in the wrong. Her dog destroyed someone's property therefore she should pay for it.