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?

Dog owner

Car family moved elsewhere, dog owner then went where they went knowing the dog would take the car if it was unleashed so the dog owner should have leashed the dog to prevent the car being destroyed.

As a non dog owner and as a non remote control car owner I think both are at fault but the dog owner more so. It would have been a kind gesture to offer some money. It seems there was no remorse what so ever and the kid with the car needs somewhere to play with his car. A park is a public space.

I once said to a man who was abusive to me (we were both cycling) that he wouldn’t have said that to me if I was a man and he replied “No I would have hit you”! I was almost speechless but managed to suggest he perhaps needed anger management classes.

Dog owner is unreasonable. If I knew my dog was likely to steal the childrens toys, then I would have put the dog on a lead while there were children playing about.

The son goes chasing the dog, which the dog completely loves 😂😂😂

In other news, both were at fault. The guys sound like they made no attempt to control the cars. But the dog owner sounds entitled - her warning comment suggests she thought all the responsibility for keeping the dog and cars apart was on the guys.

Dog owner should have been in control of her dog.

I wasn't saying that the dog owner was completely in the right if you read my posts - they should have put the dog back on the lead while the idiots with the car were around. But it doesn't take away from the fact that the people with the car behaved foolishly also. Probably passive aggressively driving the car near the dog because they had been told not to. To make a point that it's "their manor" or something.

I'd say legally it was contributory negligence on the part of the car operator.

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.

Equally, the problem was caused by the child driving their car near the dog when they'd been asked not to. [shrug]

There is fault on both sides.

I'm with the dog owner on this one.

Equally, the problem was caused by the child driving their car near the dog when they'd been asked not to

No not really, the dog owner is not the boss of the park!

No not really, the dog owner is not the boss of the park!

Exactly.

All this bollocks about ‘they were warned’, too!

Bizarre.

I once said to a man who was abusive to me (we were both cycling) that he wouldn’t have said that to me if I was a man and he replied “No I would have hit you”! I was almost speechless but managed to suggest he perhaps needed anger management classes

Unbelievable.

Car family moved elsewhere, dog owner then went where they went knowing the dog would take the car if it was unleashed so the dog owner should have leashed the dog to prevent the car being destroyed

The dog owner didn't go where they went. The dog owner and man/son went in different directions. It was later on that they ran into each other. The dog owner didn't follow the man/son car-people.

If they both went off in different directions the dog owner is being even more unreasonable with her 'I did warn you' comments. That seems to be suggesting that the car owners shouldn't have continued with their activity at all, or should have had to make constantly sure they were nowhere near the dog at all times or face their property being destroyed. Utterly arrogant.

Yes but would dog owner not have seen them as she approached so she could leash the dog to avoid it getting the car, she knew this would happen as she had warned them. Leash the dog, walk past far enough away then unleash the dog. It was all avoidable really. I could understand it if the dog just grabbed the car but the dog owner knew it would take the car so she could have leashed the dog.

I've not long got back from taking my dog out again and remote-control-car-gate is hot gossip among the dog owners/walkers. I feel like an actual celebrity having been both witness and very minorly embroiled

Dog should have a blooming muzzle on if it is known to pick things up and break them.

She's being unreasonable.

Both at fault. Stunning lack of common sense all round

He told me he was going to call the police and report both of us.

This has made me doubly convinced I am on the dog owner's side. What kind of dick threatens bystanders with the police for not doing their bidding?

And on the remote controlled car: have any of you been to a dog track? I have. (I wouldn't go now, because I've since learnt they are cruel, but I have been in the past.) That toy rabbit whizzing past on the rail is designed to be irresistible to dogs, and I imagine that a remote controlled car has the same effect.

The park is one where dogs are allowed off-lead. If I decided, knowing this, to spread out a picnic blanket out on the grass and sort my extensive sausage collection on it in that park, I would be an idiot. The car wasn't, as far as the dog was concerned, attached to a human, it was just a tempting thing whizzing about. If you have a park where dogs are allowed to roam freely, they should be well-behaved and have reasonable recall, but expecting them to behave like automatons, and calling them "out of control" when they behave like dogs, is ridiculous.

Archery He said I was an "accessory" for not ringing the dog owner and getting her to come back to the park. I resisted saying "Mate, we're not in an episode of CSI New York, c'mon now"

50-50. The man should have picked the car up and the dog owner should have put the dog on the lead

Fiddle, that's priceless! You conspirator, you!

I LOVE this thread! More like these please. Remote-control-car-gate

Archery I know! I did smile a little bit but I didn't say anything as he was very clearly (and understandably) irate and angry.

Car owner should encourage his son not to chase dogs. Presumably they ran their cars in plain sight of dog , at which point each should have restrained/picked up to avoid such an incident.