Dog in fight, bills etc

currynchips

I'll keep it short.

A few days ago I let my dog (small Jack Russell/Lakeland cross terrier) off the lead where she was joined by two more dogs (don't know breed but they were of similar height, Westie types I think), who were also off the lead.

They all greeted but it became aggressive and my dog bit one of them. I managed to pull them apart, and apologised profusely. Owner tells me I need to get mine on a lead, amid much swearing, and tells me I'm lucky he doesn't put a boot through my face.

I later went toowners house to give my details. Cue more swearing and aggression, I kept apologising and tried my best. He threatened to report me and the dog.

Update today - wife of owner has called, stating a mark on dog's neck from attack has been found - not noticed at the time. Will not go down route of getting my dog put down (HA!), but will be seeking money for vets bills which will be found out later.

I really don't have to pay any bills at all do I, considering all were off the lead?

Bubby

I don't know if you are legally obligated to pay for their vet bills however if it had been any of my dogs I would have offered to pay the vet bill or at least half of it after all it was your dog that attacked. If you do decide to pay their bill or a portion of it tell them that you will need to contact their vets direct and ask them for a bill for whatever percentage you wish to pay but that you are only paying for the wound that your dog caused and DO NOT give the owners any money direct pay it straight to the vets. They could contact the dog warden and they could come to your house for a chat but I think as it was dog on dog as opposed to a dog on human attack then the police I don't think would be interested. Has your dog ever displayed this behaviour before? I would not be letting your dog off lead again for a while (perhaps even ever), do you know what provoked this attack?

Little_Chicken

I second what Bubby says...

yummymummy85

Would your pet insurance not cover things like this?

currynchips

I have not let my dog off the lead since, and usually do not let her off unless I can see for miles that there is nothing - I don't trust other dogs either!
I am leaning towards offering to pay half, under the conditions you suggest, because even though my dog has caused an injury, she may have been reacting to defend herself. If the owners don't accept this, they are getting nothing.

Little_Chicken

Most normal people would accept this - and as upsetting as it must be for them that their dog was bitten it sounds like they are being over the top with all of the swearing etc. Good Luck...

mrcol1000

Dog on dog attacks are purely private matters. Its only becomes an offence if you start to encourage the dog to attack another.
Morally you should offer to pay half the vets fees but you don't have to. If they are Westies I have found these often to be very agressive dogs because when they are aggressive its thought to be "cute" so not dealt with while other dogs agression is seen as dangerous and dealt with.

Getting a dog put down involves a court order and even when dogs attack people when they are put down its because the owner agrees.

Personally based on their threat to boot you in the face I'd not pay a penny. Did your dog bite the other one out of aggression or was it self defence from an equally aggressive dog? I wouldn't just pay anything because their dog came off worse. However if your dog was the aggressive one and you think it was in the wrong then pay towards the fees. No-one can force you to pay and they would have to go to the small claims court to get the money. But it would be the right thing to do to pay half. Also I would ask to see a receipt and what treatment was recieved.

I would be careful about letting your dog off the lead if it can be aggressive towards other dogs. It may pick on the wrong dog that fights back and seriously hurts it.

Raggs_2

Mark on the dogs neck? Not seen straight after? Doesn't sound that serious, unless it gets infected.

My dog got attacked by two dogs a few nights ago, one of them around the neck (bit on the ear too), the other went for the front elbow. The ear was a bit bloodied, the neck also a tiny bit. The front elbow was almost immediately noticeable (if it had been daylight, certainly), the skin had a nice hole in.

All wounds are healing nicely, and the only one I was slightly worried about was the one on the elbow getting infected, but as it didn't, no need for the vet at all (even if an abscess had developed it still wouldn't have immediately warranted the vet).

In short, what I'm trying to say is, if there is merely a mark on the neck, unless it gets infected, there isn't really anything for a vet to do (in my mind). So basically, if they try and land you with a huge bill, question it profusely (ask the vet, what was due to the mark on the neck, and what was charged for general check-up, teeth cleaning etc etc).

currynchips

yummymummy85 wrote: »

Would your pet insurance not cover things like this?

Pretty sure the excess is £250, so not worth it.
Thanks for all other replies, please give more advice if you think of something.
Good to know that they cannot force money out of me, so the half ( providing it is reasonable ) of the bill would be a polite gesture.

Inverness

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cruelty/documents/ddogslawyouleaflet.pdf

This is a good leaflet from Defra. My understanding is that you are potentially criminally liable as your dog damaged another person's dog. Dogs are property under the law. In my case I was bitten when I tried to stop three retrievers from attacking my Samoyed by pushing the away. In my case the police were called and came to see me and made a full report. They also warned the owners that the dogs had to be muzzled and kept on leads in future to avoid being put down.

Some years earlier a german shepherd attacked my poor dog and bit his tail quite badly, it almost needed to be amputated. The owner had to pay all the vert's bill. If she had not paid voluntarily I would happily have used the small claims procedure as she owed this amount under civil law.

Also, from http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/dangerous/index.htm#3

"Under the Dogs Act 1871, any person may make a complaint to a magistrates court that a dog is dangerous, or report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, it may make an order for it to be controlled or destroyed.
The Animals Act 1971 provides that the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage it causes, if he knows it was likely to cause such damage or injury unrestrained."

and

"
Section 3(5) of the 1991 Act clarifies the application of the Dogs Act 1871. The strength of the 1871 Act is that as it is not part of the criminal law, it operates on a lower standard of proof and proceedings can be taken even when a criminal offence has not been committed. It provides a remedy in a wide range of circumstances for the destruction, or imposition of controls, on dangerous dogs. A particular advantage of the 1871 Act is the fact that it applies everywhere, even in and around a private house which is why it is particularly appropriate for action on behalf of people such as postmen and women who are regularly at risk from dogs in front gardens.
Section 3(5)(b) of the 1991 Act enables a court to make an order under the 1871 Act that a dog is in future muzzled, kept on a lead, tethered or is excluded from specified places. This is a flexible provision which can be used to deal with a number of nuisance complaints about dogsincluding circumstances where dogs in one back garden cause fear of risk or injury to neighbours in another. Section 3(6) enables the neutering of male dogs in addition to, or instead of, other measures or controls.
These laws, when applied individually or in combination, serve as a positive encouragement to the owners of all dogs to exercise safe control over their dogs."

Raggs_2

Under the animals act I think the owner could fairly claim that he didn't know that it would cause damages, nor would it have been reasonable for him to know.

Which means he isn't liable for damages, however, the dangerous dogs act can still be enforced (though I very much doubt destruction of the dog would be reached even if it was).