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?

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

Honestly I think it was 50/50 blame.

Dog owner should have put the dog on a lead since she was clearly aware in advance there was a good chance the dog was going to go for the car.

Car driver should have heeded the warning and kept the car away from the dog.

On that basis I think the dog owner should be prepared to cover partial costs.

The dog owner is clearly wrong. Just think - what if the dog owner had said "my dog might bite a child" and then did. Does that absolve them of any responsibility? Of course not. If your dog is going to damage someone or something, you need to keep it on a lead, regardless of the rules.

Dogs should be sufficiently trained and under control to not be a risk to other people's things. The dog owner is completely in the wrong.

snash

Yes, really. Just illustrating that warning someone that something might happen doesn't make it their fault if it does happen. Not when it is by the agency of some other person (or dog) that the "consequence" occurs.

Both had equal right to use the park as they were doing.
Turns out it wasn't compatible.
Why did the dog owner feel they had the right to carry on as they were, and the car man should stop what they were doing? In fact, car man had already done it once, maybe it was dog owners turn the give way?
Dog owner very arrogant.

The dog owner is at fault here.

She knew that her dog was likely to destroy someone else's property. It wasn't a random event that she couldn't have possibly foreseen.

She seems to be blaming everyone else in this scenario but herself. How dare the man use the car in a public park when he was perfectly entitled to do so? How dare the son try to get his property back from the dog? etc

It was her responsibility to keep her dog under control. "But he was in play mode" is a feeble excuse for not being able to call the dog back.

Dogs allowed off the lead should be trained for immediate recall. If they will not return instantly, they should not be allowed off.

Mine will come - EVEN IF THERE IS A SQUIRREL! though, my god, that took many hours on a long leash!

Parks are where dogs are going to be off the lead. If you're not happy with that then go at a different time or elsewhere where dogs aren't allowed off the lead. Its simple

Parks are for everyone. If you're not prepared to be responsible for your dog's behaviour, don't take it to a public place. It's simple.

Car owner sounds irritating. Lots of people with these toy cars decide they can drive them close to people or animals. If one day the car gets damaged, when they've been warned, that's the risk they take operating it in a public place.

Totally dog owner.
The fact they had warned them makes them actually more guilty as they showed by that they recognised their dog was a risk.
Perhaps those that think warning should have been sufficient think that if the car owner had responded with "in that case your dog should be on a lead if they're liable to go for something" would have been as good a warning for the dog owner.

If your dog (or child etc) s going to cause a problem for someone else doing a perfectly reasonable activity the onus is on you to prevent it by changing your behaviour not the other person to change round you.

It's tempting to side with the dog owner just because remote control cars are so annoying, but if that was my dog, I'd have had him on a lead.
My own dog has perfect recall when he's working but is very selective otherwise. So in that situation I'd have put him on a lead and probably also held onto his collar until the car was well past. However, my dog is never in a public place, and I was also brought up mostly in Germany where a dog off the lead in a public place would be unthinkable (we lived in a rabies area, so the rules wee very strict) so it's easy to say what I would do without there being any risk at all that I'd have to do it!

Also - it is not REALLY relevant - but how close to the dog did the car go? Did they drive it right under his feet, or was it 30 metres away when he spotted it and went to catch it?

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

This did sort of apply in the following situation only it didn't go to court.

On a train late at night with a dog on a lead sat between owners legs, man came over to stroke the dog told not to as dog would bite. Man didn't listen went to stroke the dog, the dog snapped, didn't make contact as he moved his hand in time. The the man turned to look at the police person sat a couple of seats away expecting the police to tell dog owner off, but actually told the man 'well you were warned'. Man sulked off.

The car owner is a dick.

Oakmaiden The path is about 2m wide. The dog was walking on the "outside" next to the hedge (owner had maneuvered him there because of the man/son). The man/son were taking up about half the path. They didn't steer the car near the dog, nor did they make an effort to keep it away from the dog IYSWIM.

I was walking behind the dog owner with my dog.

If a dog can't be trusted not to chew a car the dog owner should have kept it on a lead near the car (just as she would have to if the dog can't be trusted near children or other people). Dog was the only uncontrollable thing is this situation and the owner was aware of what the dog could do so there is no excuse really.

Warning someone doesn't mean that you are exempt from what happens after.
The dog owner clearly was not in control of the dog.
If he/she knew what the dog would do why didn't he/she put the lad on for the 2 second they were passing the dog.
It is a shared space and both are entitled to do their activity in peace, difference is the man with the car did not actually disturb the dog, the dog grabbed the cars.

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.

Just for that, he can fuck off, imo.

Do you think he’d still have been threatening to report you if you were a 6 ft 4, built-like-a-tank, tattooed bloke with parallel facial scars walking your pet Rottweiler, Ripper?

Dog owner was wrong. If the dog did not come immediately when called there is no excuse. What if the dog had gone for a small child instead of a toy car? She has a legal responsibility to keep her animal under control in a public place at anytime of the day whatever the sign says about letting dogs off the lead. At the very least, if I were the man, I would be reporting the incident and owner to the relevant authorities.

I was at the local park a few years ago and a man had 4 big dogs off their leads. He called all of them when he saw I had a toddler with me. One dog was slow to respond so he put all dogs on their leads and into the back of his truck and left immediately.

The dog should have been under control. It wasn't.
Telling someone that you can't control your dog doesn't absolve you of responsibility for whatever damage they cause.

Dogs have to be under control at all times on or off lead. I'd therefore say dog owner is at fault. My dog would be on a lead passing a car as I know she would be upset.

Neither party showed much consideration to the other. The car driver is outraged clearly or wouldn't be asking for damages but in reality it's not an obvious blame situation, hence all the different replies on here. I don't think the dog owner should pay just because she's been told to. She might have offered but she shouldn't have to.

If your dog (or child etc) s going to cause a problem for someone else doing a perfectly reasonable activity the onus is on you to prevent it by changing your behaviour not the other person to change round you.

Well, the man's child was going to cause a problem for someone doing a perfectly reasonable activity so....