celeste Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Telegraph Pleased at the ruling, but it does make you wonder, if it had been a Staffie or Rottie, would there have been the same outcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudi Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Blimey is that case still going on! Can't believe she's been pursuing it for four years, does make you wonder if there's something else going on there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 The court heard that Mrs Welsh and Mr Brady, who live in the same village, were both out walking their dogs and the animals were running together in a field. When Mrs Welsh called her dog they both ran towards her and Ebony struck her on the inside of the knee. How on earth could that be constructed as an attempt to "attack and kill"????? That silly bint just wanted money and didn't want to take 'no' for an answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Pleased at the ruling, but it does make you wonder, if it had been a Staffie or Rottie, would there have been the same outcome I would hope the outcome would have been the same for any breed, the judges seem to have used common sense anyway. Black labradors are considered ideal for young families because of their gentle and playful natures, but Mrs Welsh's compensation case rested on persuading the courts that they are likely to attack humans. I really don't understand how she expected to succeed with this claim, about black Labs being likely to attack humans, when everything I've read about this case has confirmed it was an accident, without aggression, resulting from two dogs (hers included!) running around and playing with each other. I therefore don't really see how she had a leg to stand on (excuse the pun ) in claiming that a breed is aggressive and likely to attack?! I had sympathy for her at the start as it does seem to have had considerable impact on her life, but this has wiped all my sympathy away. If she really has been that badly affected that she lost work and income, could she not just have sought compensation for accidental damage? I wonder if she had thought about the consequences had she been successful - I don't think it was likely to happen, but say black Labs had been deemed aggressive as a result of this one incident - what would have happened next time a less than dog friendly person got knocked over by a golden retriever, like hers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenOldie Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 How can any so-called intelligent person , and a dog owner to boot, interpret any dog (of any breed) running into her leg while playing as anything but an accident! Thank heavens for at least one sensible judge! What a waste of time and money and what a worry for the lab. owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 she was probably relying on bite statistics which point to labs (of either colour) being close to the top of the list of breeds which have bitten but there are far more labs registered in this country than any other breed, so their higher bite rate in figures is proportionate to numbers owned and should be disregarded, again proving no breed of dog is any more likely to bite than any other. Thank god for sensible judges and loyal owners who fight for their dogs we as tax payers are funding these ridiculous claims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 thank goodness the judge made the right decision, i can't believe that the lady has dragged it out for so long, accidents happen, i am disabled and have been knocked over several times by dogs playing and i have never once thought of sueing somebody for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 she was probably relying on bite statistics which point to labs (of either colour) being close to the top of the list of breeds which have bitten but there are far more labs registered in this country than any other breed, so their higher bite rate in figures is proportionate to numbers owned and should be disregarded, again proving no breed of dog is any more likely to bite than any other. How would bite statistics be relevant in a case where the person wasn't bitten though? By all accounts she was knocked over by accident by a dog playing with her own dog. No biting involved. I could see a non-dog person going all out to try to cause problems for a breed/the species in general - recalling the times a dog has run over and licked a child and the parent then calls for all dogs to be muzzled and kept on lead but for a dog owner injured by accident by another dog to do this, just baffles me. My sympathy for her really has gone completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddyboy Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) If the owner of a retriever cannot work out that 2 dogs of a similar size running towards you means "move to one side a bit sharpish" she must be particularly dense. Oh hang on - I tripped over a JR the other day, maybe I should sue as well?? Edited July 12, 2009 by buddyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 If the owner of a retriever cannot work out that 2 dogs of a similar size running towards you means "move to one side a bit sharpish" she must be particularly dense. Oh hang on - I tripped over a JR the other day, maybe I should sue as well?? Hmmm, it might've been "attempted murder by tripping" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 I thought all dog owners developed eyes in the back of the head - just like mums of toddlers. I have often had to side step out of the way of a couple of boisterous dogs playing. I should think the lab's owner is insured and a layer saw £ signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 How would bite statistics be relevant in a case where the person wasn't bitten though? By all accounts she was knocked over by accident by a dog playing with her own dog. No biting involved. because bite statistics might be a way of claiming dangerousness but as they are flawed it would be fruitlless anyway. eta section three of the dda does not require a dog to bite just that it is dangerously out of control and either causes injury to a person or reason to believe it might. we have just had one through were an injury was caused by the 'victim' injuring his thumb whilst beating a dog with a stick whilst splitting up two fighting dogs the owner of the offlead was charged with a section three offence. luckily the case was dropped but not because it was stupid but because the offlead dog was not allowed out of control by its owner who was 250 miles away at the time but by a burglar who let the dog out before breaking into the owners premises. and the burglar could not be traced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts