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?

I live in Germany, and there's a massive area just nearby where dogs are allowed off their leads, along the Elbe. At one spot you get a lot of nudists, but I don't go up to them and tell them that they need to cover up or my dog will lick their naked bodies. It just happened the once :D and that was enough to teach me to put the dog on the lead around nudists.

Car owners were a bit foolish, but the dog owner is definitely liable.

Dog owners are legally obliged to have their dogs under control in a public area.

On balance I'd say 75% with the dog owner, as it was easier for them to put the dog on the lead and still enjoy their morning, whereas stopping playing with the cars altogether puts a complete stop to that family's enjoyment of the park. Their garden is probably too small.

A dog can be walked anywhere, too.

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?

I did make this exact point to the man in question

Apparently yes he would still have ranted at me and be reporting me because me and the other dog walker were in the wrong. Her in the wrong for the whole car incident and me in the wrong for not calling her and telling her to come back.

Incidentally, my dog actually is a rottweiler but she's called Turnip not Ripper.

People cross the road to avoid my DH when he's walking the dog. He's 6'2, shaved head and constantly looks pissed off.

Dogs at a nudist spot - what could possibly go wrong?

Dog should have been on a lead if it wasn't trustworthy. Dog owner should pay.

Dog owner.

She knew that the dog might destroy property, but didn't bother to put her dog on a lead to prevent it.

I hope that she is reported & made to pay something if she doesn't decide herself that it's the right thing to do.

I can see why the man would have thought about calling the police tbh. He was just playing with his child in the park when someone else came along, told him to stop playing, then let their dog break his possibly expensive property, and walked calmly off.

Dogs at a nudist spot - what could possibly go wrong? grin

FETCH STICK, ROVER!

Was he supposed to not call the police because the owner was a woman?

I doubt the police will do anything.

They have better things to do than chasing a woman about a broken car.

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

No, they didn't. They stayed in the park where they were entitled to be, and happened to cross paths again with the dog later. They weren't following it.

And a warning doesn't help anyway. Imagine I said to you "Don't come near me again with that expensive necklace, otherwise I may take it from you." Subsequently you meet me again when you are wearing the necklace, and I proceed to rip it off you. Is that your fault because I warned you? Obviously not.

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.

Which is precisely why the owner should have put the dog on a lead as soon as she saw the toy car.

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

Not so. The problem was caused by the dog being off the lead and incapable of responding to recall when seeing a moving toy. The child did not cause that.

Dog destroyed someone else's property - owner should pay

I think the remote control car owner was in the wrong.

To use the nudist example, if someone said to you "I wouldn't wave that anywhere near my dog or she'll have it off" the nudist would then be crazy to do the lambada past the dog.

I'm being facetious but the dog wasn't out of control. I don't think I've ever seen a remote control car at a park and of course it's the sort of thing that would send a dog nuts. And they'd been warned, which they chose to ignore.

I have a dog, she is fine off the lead unless there are picnics around where she will run off and snaffle whatever she can eat.

I put the lead on if there are picnic-ers around.

Wouldn't dream of telling them to keep their picnics away from my dog as she might be tempted by it.

Dog owner completely to blame here. The fact she saw fit to warn them that the dog might attack the car actually proves it.

Was he supposed to not call the police because the owner was a woman?

He can call in the air force and heat seeking cameras if he likes.

Nowt to do with the OP.

I didn't mean he shouldn't call the police because we're women.

I made the point to him that if I was a man (not least the 6'4, tattooed, scarred Adonis mentioned up-thread), he wouldn't have had a go at me, wouldn't have demanded I called the dog walker to come back and wouldn't have asked me where she lived, which he did once.

He said he would've done but I'm doubtful.

Dog owner is wrong. The moment the dog becomes uncontrollable (or is around something that could lead to its behaviour becoming uncontrollable, e.g. remote control car) it should go on a lead.

Definitely the dog owner - they warned them and they chose to ignore.

However, you could look at it that perhaps the dog owner should have put the dog on the lead if they thought what happened might happen

Owner should have held the dog once she realised the dog and the toy would cross paths.

Father should have picked up toy once he realised the dog and toy would cross paths.

Both wrong. The dog should have been on lead and the car guy should have kept it away from dog after being told.

My kids love remote control planes and cars and stuff. It's common sense to keep them and balls and other toys away from dogs. I've taught my children to watch out for them when we're in the park. I also think the dog should have been under control. This situation could easily have been avoided if all parties hadn't been twats about it.

I’m a dog owner and I’m sorry but dog owner is in the wrong if it can’t be trusted not to take things that don’t belong to him then he shud be on a lead the fact that she warned him means she knew her dog wud do it so she shud of put it on lead straight away telling someone to stay away because ur pet takes things is out of order again if u have to warn people then u know what ur dog is capable off , 😒