Dog ran into me and I broke my ankle - now what?

catkins

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, that's the law. One which dog owners have to abide by, or don't have dogs. You can be held criminally responsible for your dogs damage/injury. You example is a dog owner, not thinking thing through and they are 100% responsible.

There is nothing to stop someone trying to pursue a civil claim against huge costs by someones child. With a dog it's pretty easy, as the law is clear.

Also if you note, in your examples. The children caused no damage. The dog did. So a pointless straw-man.

I think the govt should make pet insurance compulsory and bring in training for OWNERS. so dog owners stop this "oh he's only playing nonsense" As they knock a child over.

Compulsory pet insurance would be a good idea if (a) it was made more affordable and (b) it was even remotely possible to enforce. Neither of those things would happen.


No, in the example I gave the children did not cause damage although there may well have been incidents were a child did. I know the dog caused a watch to be broken but to then ban all dogs!! I know that even had a child caused any sort of accident or damage all children would not be banned. That would be silly just as banning all dogs is.

ash28 wrote: »

There is a playing field near us and dogs are banned from it altoghter.....why ...because dog owners didn't pick up the dog poo left all over the playing field. They were asked numerous times to pick up after their dogs or they would lose the right to use the field. Eventually the parish council banned them and rightly so.

You can't compare a child to a dog. The incident you talk about was entirely the fault of the dog owner who tied their dog to a table leg. Didn't the owner know their dog well enough to realise it would be distressed if the owner disappeared - our dog would have been distressed too, so I would never put her in that position.

So the dogs were banned from the courtyard because of an irresponsible dog owner or was it the fault of the person who had their watch broken?

There are as many irresponsible parents as there are irresponsible dog owners.....it makes me wonder if some parents who let a child loose unsupervised in an area where hot drinks are being served have a single brain cell. And actually I'm pretty pleased dogs can't do as they like.......but what ever floats your boat.

I realise that dogs get banned because of stupid ignorant irresponsible owners who don't clear up after their dogs. They are banned from lots of beaches in the summer but you go along and see the dirty nappies left behind - is that ok? Why are we being banned from places because of a minority of owners? Children would not be banned because of some irresponsible parents would they?



Of course I think the blame in the incident I gave was on the dog owner. I never said it wasn't. It's possible they didn't see the sign to use the doorbell (could have been their first visit there) or, of course, they could have decided to ignore it. Because of that one owner's ignorance, stupidity, mistake (whatever you want to call it) all dogs have been banned. I just don't see how that is fair. Mind you when the caf! goes out of business I won't be sorry for them.


Of course it's not a good idea to let children run around tables where there are hot drinks and food but some parents (unfortunately a large number) seem to think their children can do whatever they like. Dogs would always be sitting at or under the table usually pretty quietly and children often would be running around, screaming, having tantrums. I would rather sit where there were 20 dogs than 4 ill behaved children.


I never said dogs should do as they like but neither, in certain places, should children be allowed to


I went to watch the Tour de France go through a local village on Monday. People kept standing in the road and letting their children stand in the road when even before the cycles went through there were various cars, vans, motor bikes etc going through and the one policeman had to keep shouting at them to get back on the pavement. There was a field opposite where I was standing and a few pretty young children (from about 4 to 6) kept backwards and forwards across the road to the field. No parent with them - their parents were stood my side of the road and just kept shouting to them to "watch the road". Why not stand the side of the field if it was such a magnet to the children (don't know why it was), why not keep them with you and tell them they are not going to keep crossing the road? In the space of about an hour they must have crossed at least 8 times, sometimes the youngest one crossing on his own. If one of them had been hit by a vehicle I bet the parents would have blamed everyone but themselves.

tinkerbell28

I still don't get it, I just see a blind hatred of children, and an extreme love of dogs I find it bizarre.

Dog poo can cause disability, people can be allergic, you're more likely to be seriously injured by a big animal than a small child.

Bringing children into your argument is pointless, as you just admitted, the kids have not caused any damage. The dog did, and dogs got banned. Wishing a whole business to fail as they wanted to protect their customers is just vindictive and strange.

The dog poo thing, if people do leave dog poo, then the only way to police it is ban all dogs. As a dog owner I agree. Dog poo can cause permanent disability to a child, why risk it? If they can't keep up with the irresponsible owners, then everyone had to suffer for public safety and comfort. No one else's fault but the dog owners.

I always find it a bit strange and frightening, when dog owners don't seem to want to understand their responsibilities and just "wahhhh it's not fair" then start comparing pets to children.

I guess you could lobby parliament to have children added to the laws governing dogs if you feel so strongly....

Until then it's a case of just sucking up the fact as a dog owner, you can be criminally held responsible for their actions.

catkins

I am saying that if a child had caused the broken ankle what would you all be saying then? Sue the parents, no I bet you wouldn't. Why not?



Not sure that I agree that a large dog can cause more damage than a small child. What about a child on a bike or scooter going full pelt not looking where they are going? What about an older illbehaved child?

A child above a certain age can understand when spoken to so MORE reason why they should be better behaved than a dog.


I don't hate all children just horrid illbehaved spoilt brats who can do no wrong which unfortunately is more and more children nowadays.


I don't like illbehaved dogs either nor owners who do not clean up after their dogs but I still don't think all dog owners should be made to suffer because of a few. Some dogs owners are never going to clear up their dog poo so you think dogs should be banned from everywhere? Where I live there is loads of dog poo in the local park which is disgusting but it is also on a lot of the pavements. If the local park bans dogs what about the pavement? Maybe they should be banned from walking there too?

POPPYOSCAR

I have two dogs and I would be mortified if they had caused such an accident as this.

I would most certainly have stayed to see what help I could offer and yes I would have wanted to make sure the injured party did not suffer financially as a result.

After all, if someone had accidentally caused an injury to one of my dogs, and it was their fault I would expect them to cover the subsequent vets bills.

ash28

QUOTE=tinkerbell28;65978985]I still don't get it, I just see a blind hatred of children, and an extreme love of dogs I find it bizarre.

Dog poo can cause disability, people can be allergic, you're more likely to be seriously injured by a big animal than a small child.

Bringing children into your argument is pointless, as you just admitted, the kids have not caused any damage. The dog did, and dogs got banned. Wishing a whole business to fail as they wanted to protect their customers is just vindictive and strange.

The dog poo thing, if people do leave dog poo, then the only way to police it is ban all dogs. As a dog owner I agree. Dog poo can cause permanent disability to a child, why risk it? If they can't keep up with the irresponsible owners, then everyone had to suffer for public safety and comfort. No one else's fault but the dog owners.

I always find it a bit strange and frightening, when dog owners don't seem to want to understand their responsibilities and just "wahhhh it's not fair" then start comparing pets to children.

I guess you could lobby parliament to have children added to the laws governing dogs if you feel so strongly....

Until then it's a case of just sucking up the fact as a dog owner, you can be criminally held responsible for their actions.[/QUOTE]



I agree it's a strange place indeed when people compare animals to children. If it's ok for a child then it's ok for a dog.........

The reason the dogs were banned from the playing field in our village was concerns about health. Not because the parish council were pro children and anti dog. But if owners can't be bothered to pick up after their dogs then dogs should be banned.

Toxocariasis can cause blindness or partial blindness and there are around 120 cases in the UK every year - usually children. It's mainly picked up in public parks when dog owners don't pick up after their dogs. If the poo is picked up straight away then there is no danger as it takes about 3 weeks for the area to become contaminated. Not everyone worms their dog unfortunately.

I'm sure most dog owners who don't clean up after their dogs are aware of the potential dangers but just don't care enough about the wider population to pick up the poo.

catkins

But why should all dog owners suffer because of a few inconsiderate ones?


Imagine you took your children to a local park almost every weekend and often on a week day too and used the caf! there, always buying at least 2 drinks but often buying meals as well. Then one day you get there to see a sign "no children allowed". How would you feel? Would you really say "Oh well because of some selfish parents all us parents have to suffer"? No of course you wouldn't.


I don't see why as a dog owner I should be treated as a second class citizen. More and more places are banning dogs. Makes me laugh that this country is meant to be a nation of dog lovers - what a joke!! Go to Europe and you will see countries that don't ban dogs from everywhere, in fact they welcome into shops, restaurants, hotels etc

heartbreak_star

Also, dirty nappies can carry some nasty diseases and I too have seen these on beaches and discarded in parks.

Regarding the OP, I am on the side of "it was an accident" and "if it was a child would you sue the parents?" but I think it was incredibly rude of the dog owner to just toddle off.

HBS x

gettingready

Did not read ALL the posts but....

Some say dog was out of control and the person tripped over dog/dog run into a person etc.

What WOULD you all say if the dog was on a lead, someone did not see the lead and tripped over that lead?

C'mon - it was an ACCIDENT....

Caroline_a

It really does depend on the circumstances. My friend who was knocked over by the dog was around 100m from the owners. They had let their dogs off their leads and the dogs went off like rockets. My friend heard the owners shouting and turned to see the one dog charging at her - just joi de vivre, nothing nasty. So she stood her ground expecting the dog to swerve round her. It didn't, knocked her flying.

There was total clarity of vision at the time - the dog just wasnt listening to the owners shouting at them to call it back - hence was out of control. An accident that could have been prevented by better training, keeping the dog on a lead, etc etc.

Edit - due to this my friend lost 6 months wages (she has 2 jobs to keep body and soul together) and got behind with her mortgage. I do feel that this was certainly an occasion where there was a justifiable claim.

bellrooster

gettingready wrote: »

Did not read ALL the posts but....

Some say dog was out of control and the person tripped over dog/dog run into a person etc.

What WOULD you all say if the dog was on a lead, someone did not see the lead and tripped over that lead?

C'mon - it was an ACCIDENT....

I don't think tripping over a dog lead is comparable to being knocked off your feet by a dog?


I think everyone agrees that it was an accident, but that is what insurance is for surely? to cover the cost of an accident?


In this case time off work and possibly prescription costs/trips to hospital for appointments etc