Labradors, model yachts and off-leash dog parks

[MangoSeason]

This has taken place in Australia, COVID-thread police.

Met up with two other labrador owners and took our three labs to the park. The park is enormous with a very large pond in the middle. Half of the park is a fenced off-leash dog area with the pond forming part of one boundary. The other half of the park is an on-leash dog area. The pond is enormous so dogs swimming on the off-leash side never seem to swim over to the on-leash side.

The labradors were playing fetch in the pond from the off-leash side when a man launched his remote control model yacht from the bank of the pond from the on-leash side. He sailed his yacht right past our labradors in the water who were playing fetch. About 2 metres away from then. Two of the labradors ( not mine fortunately) grabbed the yacht and had a game of tug-of-war in which the yacht sails were torn and it got scratched and battered about.

The yacht owner was furious and wants my friends to pay for the replacement of his “bespoke sails” and general scratch and dent repairs.

YABU- Owners should have complete control of their dogs at all time, even in an off-leash area, and if you are not confident that your dog will leave an item in the water, even in the middle of a game of fetch in the water, you should not have them off leash

YANBU- Yacht man was a complete idiot and no one with half a brain would sail an expensive model yacht right past excited labradors playing fetch in the water.

I personally think yacht man was a complete fool but I would expect my friends are legally responsible for repairing the yacht as their dogs damaged it in a public place. They don’t think they are, so it will be interesting to see if yacht man takes it further.

Going with yacht man don't really think it through- sailing beside animals is never going to be a great idea- and if he deliberately sailed the boat almost up the arse of a group of labs- not even owning one I'd say destruction would be inevitable. Not sure legally where you all stand though as you both have equal rights to use it and the dogs technically weren't under control.

Have you got proof it entered the water that day in pristine condition?

Yes you should have had control of your dogs but he should have had control of his yacht so it’s his own silly fault.
And frankly, he needs to grow up.

Did the yacht sail into the off-leash portion of the pond?

YABU. The dogs should be under control at all times or they shouldn’t be off leash at all.

However, the man should have known better than to trust dog owners would be responsible and that any item would be safe near off leash dogs.

How much $ does yacht man want? I think my sympathies are with him.

Cannot imagine he didn’t see the large splashy Labradors in the water before he launched his toy.

Yes we should always have our dogs under control but dogs in water are a joy to behold.
He was the unreasonable one.

Well, in this country, animals owners are liable for the actions of their pets under the Animals Act. It's strict liability so it's irrelevant whether the owner of eg a model yacht sailing on a pond might have been slightly careless.

I'd be surprised if the law was different in Australia because irs a common law system originally based on English law. But Im sure you can easily check it.

Morally and legally, you should probably pay up.

The man was an idiot and should have gone to a park without dogs. Or kept away from them.

Yacht man is a bell end

Yacht man was an idiot.
That said “bespoke sails” for model yachts are £££ (and some of the boats are ££££) so he was probably quite upset, even if it was his own fault.
(He should have insurance anyway.)

@GreenlandTheMovie

Well, in this country, animals owners are liable for the actions of their pets under the Animals Act. It's strict liability so it's irrelevant whether the owner of eg a model yacht sailing on a pond might have been slightly careless.

I'd be surprised if the law was different in Australia because irs a common law system originally based on English law. But Im sure you can easily check it.

Morally and legally, you should probably pay up.

That's not true. Strict liability applies to dangerous animals, and dogs are not categorised as such. Liability for a non-dangerous species needs to be proven, and even if it could be in such circumstances (which I doubt), contributory negligence is a valid defence. Dog are not invisible, and sailing ones "precious" toy near dogs playing in the water when they are legally off-leash is stupid. I will lay bets that he thought it would be funny to frighten the dogs with it. Jokes on him. I'd tell him to see me in court.

Would he throw a football into a group of dogs playing, and expect it to be ignored? This is the same.

He sailed his boat into a group of playing animals. He could have kept to his own side of the pond- it's big enough that the dogs stay on their own side.

Contributory negligence she said darkly

YANBU

I'd counter with a vet bill for a thorough examination of my dog if it had chewed a nasty, spikey model yacht.

@GreenlandTheMovie

Well, in this country, animals owners are liable for the actions of their pets under the Animals Act. It's strict liability so it's irrelevant whether the owner of eg a model yacht sailing on a pond might have been slightly careless.

I'd be surprised if the law was different in Australia because irs a common law system originally based on English law. But Im sure you can easily check it.

Morally and legally, you should probably pay up.

The animals act covers damage done to livestock, when trespassing and by dangerous dogs (to sone extent) I'm not sure it would apply in this case. FWIW OP. The man sounds like an entitled idiot.

Don't know how to vote on phone but YANBU. I would tell your friends to refuse to pay up. How is yachtman going to enforce payment in any event? May be biased as owner of naughty beagle who would have attacked the yacht with glee . Keen to hear how this pans out- please keep us updated OP!

@echt

Did the yacht sail into the off-leash portion of the pond?

No-one is sure if there is an official water boundary. But yacht man had sailed yacht 4/5ths across the pond, so well into off-leash side, if the boundary is the middle of the pond.

The yacht man was an idiot to sail it towards the dogs but you should be able to get your dog to leave something when told so I think the fault lies with the dog owner and they should at least make a contribution.

(I am a dog owner - he is always on lead as he never learnt a reliable recall)

I think it was entirely predictable and therefore the yacht man's fault. Of course the dogs were going to chase it

Surely if you can't stop your dog chasing something they shouldn't be off lead.

What's the betting he has done it before to enjoy scaring the dogs / watching the owners get worried about the yacht being close and start trying to recall the dogs.
He's got a whole pond to go at and he chooses to go very close to two large animals despite the item being extremely valuable and special... He's at best well over due a life lesson as hopelessly naive or he's used to people giving way to his domineering spaces and has got away with it so far. I don't think he could sue for that the whole thing is a bit his word against yours unless someone filmed it.

Even dogs with excellent recall/leave responses could be caught out by that because the item is so novel and eye catching, unexpected objects can fix the best of recalls unless you have an animal trained to military level obedience which is not realistic for most family pets... It was probably moving in an interesting way and maybe making a funny noise, add to that the animals were playing excitedly, and why shouldn't they since they were in an off lead area. If he puts his very valuable toy that close, and relying on owner control to save him from his own actions he's an idiot.

Man was a complete idiot but unfortunately the dog owners should pay up, morally (don't know about legally).

I have a dog - even bomb proof recall probably means 99% of the time at absolute best. If you think your dog is okay to be off leash (with DPup it's a work in progress) you accept paying up for damage if the dog gets at something and it turns out its recall isn't as good as you thought it was.

I think if it came down to it, legally the dog owner should be liable, but it’s given me a great chuckle. I would have loved to have seen his face.

For the record my dog would probably have done the same thing, but she would have been on a lot no line as her recall is unreliable.

[quote RealisticSketch]Even dogs with excellent recall/leave responses could be caught out by that because the item is so novel and eye catching, unexpected objects can fix the best of recalls unless you have an animal trained to military level obedience which is not realistic for most family pets... It was probably moving in an interesting way and maybe making a funny noise, add to that the animals were playing excitedly, and why shouldn't they since they were in an off lead area. If he puts his very valuable toy that close, and relying on owner control to save him from his own actions he's an idiot.