Ruby1Nic Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...5k-damages.html Interesting. Thought I'd post this as there was a thread running on a similar subject a little while ago regarding responsibility and/or liability in similar circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 At Pontefract County Court last year, Judge Bartfield ruled that, although Hector was a gentle dog who had never been in any trouble before, Mr Whippey had been negligent in allowing him off the lead when other people might be about. Since when do we have a law that states dogs can't go off-lead if other people are around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 oooh looking forward to the appeal judgement on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil_angel Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 How can a dog of that size appear from nowhere You would see him coming a mile away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happylittlegreensquirrel Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Since when do we have a law that states dogs can't go off-lead if other people are around. does the DDA not cover that by "dogs being dangerously out of control" , you can have your dog off lead but it needs to be under control Missus Rumpole we need you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 I think the owner could have been charged under the DDA but doeasn't appear to have been. The court case was only about damages. Legal fees amounted to £25,000 Sounds like one of those injury claim cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 does the DDA not cover that by "dogs being dangerously out of control" , you can have your dog off lead but it needs to be under control But that wasn't what the quote I posted said ... At Pontefract County Court last year, Judge Bartfield ruled that, although Hector was a gentle dog who had never been in any trouble before, Mr Whippey had been negligent in allowing him off the lead when other people might be about. If the article quotes the judge correctly, I read this as the judge stating that the owner shouldn't have let the dog off lead at all with other people about and that he was negligent by doing so - regardless of whether the incident had occurred or not. It's perfectly possible to have your dog under control when off lead, as you've rightly said. The judge doesn't seem to get that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGAR Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 My opinion will not be popular but here it goes anyway. The jogger didn't just fell over, he broke his ankle. Having broken my ankle myself after falling over a Great Dane , I know the pain is excrutiating and it never quite heals properly either. The man had a right to go jogging without being jumped on by a dog. And I wonder if the judgement had something to do with the owner being a member of the RSPCA and if the judgement had been different if an *ordinary* person had owned the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nettie Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 He added that the court case had put a massive strain on both him and his dog. 'Unfortunately, Hector now has a terminal heart condition. Medication is keeping him going for now - he's on 12 tablets a day.' I am sorry but that statement is just plain silly, it seems he is blaming the strain of the court case on Hector's heart condition or is that just bad journalism? Reading it again, I think it might be just very badly written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 How can a dog of that size appear from nowhere You would see him coming a mile away. If it was in a park I would imagine there were trees or bushes which could have obscured the jogger's view of the dog I have mixed views on this one. No, there shouldn't be a law or precedent set which precludes people from letting dogs off lead when there are other people about. However, Hector was clearly not under the control of his owner and ended up doing serious injury to someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tails4wagging Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 There is an area along the foreshore at Lancing that is now divided into a walkway and a cycletrack, so you can be walking your dog/dogs safely of the lead or on an extended lead when suddenly a cyclist rushs past you from behind. No warning, no bell. Dogs along the path ,accidents waiting to happen. Crazy. I dont go there now for that reason. Why they just divided a path like that god knows. even without dogs you are in danger of being mowed down by a cyclist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) I think the specific point of law here is that his owner could not be expected to predict a completely unpredictable event. Personally, I don't believe that any animal is 100% controllable 100% of the time. Any animal can behave erratically when surprised, sometimes genuine accidents happen and its nobody's fault - and it's a good thing that the law is able to recognise that. I walk quite often on land that is grazed by free range ponies and cows: these are animals that are much more powerful and less controllable than even a large dog, and they are completely unsupervised most of the time. If one of them ran over me (and it could happen, I've found myself with a gang of ponies zooming round the corner at me before now) then I would obviously not be happy about it, but I would consider it a genuine accident, because the alternative is a world where there are no footpaths over fields and no walking on any grazed area. I think that would be a bad thing. If we want to have shared green spaces, then I think we have to accept a level of risk using them and agree that suing for damages is not always appropriate. Edited March 31, 2009 by cycas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanrossscot Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) I'm with Cycas on this ^^^^, the jogger could just as easily been knocked down by a cyclist, or child not looking where they were going. Edited March 31, 2009 by sanrossscot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happylittlegreensquirrel Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I would be very upset if any of my dogs caused ( by accident ) an injury to a person or animal, ditto if I caused the injury I guess a lot of it comes down to what chances of it happening where, if I owned a dog that always jumped up at people in the park ( or sometimes jumped up ) then yes I would be very irresponsible to let that dog off in parks if my dog had never jumped up at anyone and then did it once then I would not say I had been irresponsible but would still feel awful if the person was hurt and would still feel that I took some responsibility because it was my dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilRed Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 The injury the jogger sustained could have been caused by many things - tripping over a tree root for instance - so for me it was an injury that he had implicitly accepted the risk of by deciding to jog. The fact that it was actually caused by the dog I'm not sure is that important ... you could argue that it was caused not by the dog but by the fall down the bank. I feel this is a sensible decision from the judge which in these dog-phobic times is very welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts