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

Sally22_2

I'm just glad it wasn't a small child that was knocked over in the park as the injuries could have been even more serious than they are with an adult.

I still stand by the stance that this is something the insurance is bought to cover. That's why its included in the policy wording.

lostinrates

Sally22 wrote: »

I'm just glad it wasn't a small child that was knocked over in the park as the injuries could have been even more serious than they are with an adult.
.

Or less serious.


When little my friends and were bowled over by our our dogs we had over excited when running in fields and fell of ponies. Some times we had injuries, other times we 'bounced' in ways heavier adults just wouldn't.

In any case, in this case op's wife has a broken ankle, which is ghastly enough. I think the issue of tact is important. But I think the fact is the owner of the lab should have at the very least checked you were ok. She might have presumed the exclamation was not result of an accident but people 'making a fuss' or being surprised, or disliking her dog and therefore might have been trying to get him away ASAP, to help or avoid confrontation. We all make wrong calls sometimes and while i still think its a poor show I perhaps think with reflection its very possibly a poor call rather than a deliberate evasion of responsibility.

I think the thing to do would be to try and find out, subtly, who she is/ where she lives and make non confrontational contact.

BJV

I really feel sorry for your OH but insurance claim?


It is really hard one. I have a dog a very bouncy springer and while he has never knocked anyone over I have been walking with him and a couple who where deep in what ever conversation not looking where they where going tripped over him.


Ok he was not on the lead instead walking by my side and yes no-one was hurt but if we apply the claim - blame theory ? I would be gutted if they had tried to claim because they tripped over my dog.


OH it is always difficult because you have opened the "dog on a lead" can of worms and owners will come out in defence.


Ref insurance - it is their to help in genuine cases. It is not genuine cases that put premiums up instead it is all the fraudulent ones!


P.s really hope your OH is feeling better, I have never broken a bone but believe it can be really painful and very uncomfortable in this weather.

ska_lover

southgater wrote: »

In days gone by most people would have written this off as an accident. It's sad that in this day and age, people try and cash in anyway they can. I hope you don't get a penny.

A newbie trolling, how original

tinkerbell28

Sally22 wrote: »

I'm just glad it wasn't a small child that was knocked over in the park as the injuries could have been even more serious than they are with an adult.

I still stand by the stance that this is something the insurance is bought to cover. That's why its included in the policy wording.

I agree, which is why I think op should take it further. This IS a genuine claim and what PL in the pet insurance is designed for.

The dog owner has been negligent and probably committed an offence. The dog was out of control.

What if it was a child, who cracked their head? A much graver situation, but according to posters here that would be an "accident". :eek:

If the lab is jumpy, the owner should've had it on a lead. No if's, buts or maybes. A lab IS HEAVY! It can and will knock you flying if it's a jumpy one. They have a very child like mentality, which can make them boisterous and frankly dangerous in new situations as they can knock people flying.

A RESPONSIBLE dog owner will get this and leash up accordingly. Maybe the owner being held to account and forced to actually be a responsible dog owner, will save his dog injuring other people. Deliberately or not.

bellrooster

It's been mentioned a couple of the times on this thread that a broken ankle is relatively 'trivial' injury, in my opinion it really isn't.


I broke my ankle 17 months ago, 4 nights in hospital, 1 operation, 7 screws and a metal plate later and as I sit here typing it still niggles slightly.


In my case, it was an accident (slipped in my own kitchen) but I think if I was in the position of the OP's gf then I would be pursuing some financial reimbursement from the dog owner. If my dog caused and injury to someone then I would expect them to claim on my pet insurance.


I hope your girlfriend is on the mend OP

lostinrates

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

If the lab is jumpy, the owner should've had it on a lead. No if's, buts or maybes. A lab IS HEAVY! It can and will knock you flying if it's a jumpy one. They have a very child like mentality, which can make them boisterous and frankly dangerous in new situations as they can knock people flying.
.

Labs can be heavy.

But they are beautifully trainable in general and while enthusiastic and hard to wear out can be immensely steadfast . Look at their 'job description' and other uses in modern working life.

Confusedandneedhelp

This seems to be a case of dog owners feeling victimised, much like cyclists on roads and mobility scooters in shops.

the right of self is so drilled into the population that we should foregt any 3rd party and pull up the draw bridge as soon as 'we', the group we are associated with at the time is attacked.

let's put this simply, Party A has a large dog, in law they are responsible for this animal. The dog behaved out of control, causing injury and loos to Party B (who also have a dog, but who was not out of control, nor causing any damage). Party A has failed in their duty to society, by failing to control a large and dangerous animal (dangerous by definition, as he/she has caused injury to Party .
Party A is therefore responsible for returning PArty B to the position they were in prior to this incident (it is only an accident as it was not maliciously planned by Party A). This would cover the loss of earnings for sure, but also any loss suffered, could include for example Gym Mebership fees, Holidays (as mentioned), any special measures requires in the home, in reality any specific changes which are a direct result of this incident.

This is no different to a driver knocking a pedestrian over, or hitting another vehicle, or any action taken by anyone, which is not malicious, but which has caused harm and loss.

It is not the dog's fault, the dog is not liable, it's keeper is. I really dont see why dog owners are jumping to defend this person. They have a dangerous dog and do not keep it under control.

Had the OPs partner had a fall, got back up and said, im ok, just a fall, suffered a bruise for a few days and been fine overall - that you put down to experience, as whilst there is harm, the loss is negligible.

My son got his fingers stcuk in a door at school, the teachers were not supervising addequently (by their own admission) and were also unable to open the door for a number of minutes. (toilet cubicle door), we suffered no loss, and the harm was realistically brusing and the loss of a nail. My son overall was fine. We did not sue the school, these things happen. Had he been seriously injured, whereby the teachers werent supervising and he then required time off school to recuperate, say because he had broken his ankle, or suffered a serious injury (ie 1 requiring time off), certainly the school would be responsible for providing compensation due to loss of earnings, or for child care costs, or whatever. Accidents do happen, which is why we have civil courts.

tinkerbell28

lostinrates wrote: »

Labs can be heavy.

But they are beautifully trainable in general and while enthusiastic and hard to wear out can be immensely steadfast . Look at their 'job description' and other uses in modern working life.

I am indeed aware of that, so that's telling me to suck eggs. My husband especially comes across a lot of working labs.

Labs need a LOT of training, even then, some from non working lines will never get rid of that "child" mentality and they can be very jumpy and boisterous. Or as you call it "enthusiastic and hard to wear out". That is not a good combination for a dog off the lead in a public place, as labs are a sizeable breed.

If the owner has a jumpy, boisterous lab, heavy enough to knock and adult off their feet. Then had them off lead. They are wholly negligent and should be held to account. The law will also back that stance up. It's not justifiable in any way shape or form.

lostinrates

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

I am indeed aware of that, so that's telling me to suck eggs. My husband especially comes across a lot of working labs.

Labs need a LOT of training, even then, some from non working lines will never get rid of that "child" mentality and they can be very jumpy and boisterous. Or as you call it "enthusiastic and hard to wear out". That is not a good combination for a dog off the lead in a public place, as labs are a sizeable breed.

If the owner has a jumpy, boisterous lab, heavy enough to knock and adult off their feet. Then had them off lead. They are wholly negligent and should be held to account. The law will also back that stance up. It's not justifiable in any way shape or form.

I agree dogs off lead should be trained. I disgree labs that are enthusiastic and hard to wear out or big dogs should never be off lead. My biggest dog ATM ways 65 kilos. She's a delight off lead and is enthusiastic.and a breed not known to be trainable, none of mine are, so the idea of something with aptitude like a gun dog bemuses me in not deemed ever being suitable. Many a time I've sat in pubs with several different gun dogs including labs off lead sitting to heel, or resting a furry chin, by invitation, on my knee while we chat about the day we've had, or what 'so happen since we last saw each other. My dog, loves to run ( fast) and play, but plays nicely with other dogs. She returns when called, doesn't approach close dogs on leads, loves small dogs, and has never knocked any one over when out. The only reason we walk out in public places is for ours to socialise with other dogs, which they enjoy.

The more relaxed attitude to leads is more common in more rural areas I admit, and pubs where only locals go and the dogs are known. I occasionally used to take one of mine in, and mine were never afforded such liberty I'm afraid, simply not up to the responsibility. With the same dogs outside in a field they have bounded along lead less cavorting great chums.