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

tinkerbell28

lostinrates wrote: »

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. She 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.



Do all the working labs you know wear leads all the time? Quite unusual ( which is not my own, I don't have a lab, but know more than a few people with working gun dogs, inc labs, as well as pet ones)

Where did I say they should be on leads at all times, all labs? I don't agree with that either.

What I do agree with is making sure they are well trained, past the boisterous/bouncy/jumpy phase. Can take 3 years with non working labs, or never if they aren't trained properly.

A boisterous, jumpy lab. Whether nature or nurture has the potential to really hurt someone like op has found out. The speed and force with which they run when excited combined with the fact they are sizeable can knock you flying. So considering the dog owner could not see what the dog may or may not be running into, and didn't call him to heel, makes him culpable.

His dog, if it will be jumpy in public places and bound up to people and not heel. It should not be off the lead. That's also the law. The dog is out of control.

He needs to train the dog or be more pro active about leashing. It sounds like he does usually but this time the dog was too quick and ran out into the park. That is not a dog under control, therefore the owner was negligent.

lostinrates

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

That is not a dog under control, therefore the owner was negligent.

Ah, I see, I see your point now and move closer to you pov.

But I do think some time we lose control while not necessary being negligent.

E.g. Sometimes good, careful drivers face road conditions that at a later date the council agree need changing ( this happened to a friend met through Mse after a tragic accident, and to DH who drives like a priest but rolled over our car on a stretch of road there have been multiple accidents on and the council have since resurfaced, changing the camber for better water runoff)

Eg 2' very good fully attentive parents can have kids fall over and have accidents.

Our dogs can trip in rabbit holes. Or, while we are in training stage fail to respond as we would like, or sometimes fail to listen

Or we, can fail to behave perfectly too. All are real life situations.

Now , I agree OP should be seeking some reimbursement here, but it think that the more I think about it the walker might not have acted 'maliciously' in leaving the scene. And that these mishaps could happen to any of us, if not with a loose dog, then with a dog on a lead in a crowd, or a toddler running into someone, or us accidentally knocking someone frailer than they look.

Help is due here, but it need not be an unpleasant situation. My mother had a prang with some ones car a few months ago, put her details on the car and since then they have become chums and gone out to dinner a few times! Dealing with this with civility and patiently on both sides will go a long way. Labrador owner will doubtless feel a bit wrong footed on receiving the news so might be snappy. Given time to think about it, if OP is gracious hopefully Labrador owner will think better quickly.

tinkerbell28

lostinrates wrote: »

Ah, I see, I see your point now and move closer to you pov.

But I do think some time we lose control while not necessary being negligent.

E.g. Sometimes good, careful drivers face road conditions that at a later date the council agree need changing ( this happened to a friend met through Mse after a tragic accident, and to DH who drives like a priest but rolled over our car on a stretch of road there have been multiple accidents on and the council have since resurfaced, changing the camber for better water runoff)

Eg 2' very good fully attentive parents can have kids fall over and have accidents.

Our dogs can trip in rabbit holes. Or, while we are in training stage fail to respond as we would like, or sometimes fail to listen

Or we, can fail to behave perfectly too. All are real life situations.

Now , I agree OP should be seeking some reimbursement here, but it think that the more I think about it the walker might not have acted 'maliciously' in leaving the scene. And that these mishaps could happen to any of us, if not with a loose dog, then with a dog on a lead in a crowd, or a toddler running into someone, or us accidentally knocking someone frailer than they look.

Help is due here, but it need not be an unpleasant situation. My mother had a prang with some ones car a few months ago, put her details on the car and since then they have become chums and gone out to dinner a few times! Dealing with this with civility and patiently on both sides will go a long way. Labrador owner will doubtless feel a bit wrong footed on receiving the news so might be snappy. Given time to think about it, if OP is gracious hopefully Labrador owner will think better quickly.

I agree with the latter half of that post. My points were mainly at all the people having a go at the op and in the same breath excusing the owner of any responsibility.

As dog owners, we have to abide by specific laws. I don't know of any by laws about your child being uncontrollable, or off a lead in public, or banning them from the beach. No matter how many would want that. If people don't understand that legally and criminally they can be held responsible for a dog caused injury. (Unlike a child tripping over their own feet, or a car accident where no evidence of criminal driving has occurred)They shouldn't own them.

Dog owners are governed by such laws and if a dog is off the lead, and has caused injury to someone by running off, then it's not in control, an accident or not. Which means the owner is wholly responsible, accident or not, the buck stops with the owner if a dog injures someone. That's why pet insurance has public liability and legal costs included in most premiums. The op could look to push a criminal case with the police, not just a civil one.

I think amicable is the way forward, but for a broken ankle, which is bloody agony. Then I do think she should persue a claim on the pet insurance. I'd be mortified if that were my dog and I'd welcome any claim against my pet insurance in this situation.

catkins

wiogs wrote: »

"In a park dogs should be allowed to run around and have fun just as children should."

Our local park has a by-law that all dogs must be kept on a lead so they don't run about.

Thankfully.

Don't know where you live but am thankful I don't live there. All dogs kept on leads in a park!!! Never heard anything so ridiculous or unfair. Of course all the little darlings are allowed to run around and bump into people, bang their bikes into peoples legs etc. Very fair!

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

As dog owners, we have to abide by specific laws. I don't know of any by laws about your child being uncontrollable, or off a lead in public, or banning them from the beach. No matter how many would want that. If people don't understand that legally and criminally they can be held responsible for a dog caused injury. (Unlike a child tripping over their own feet, or a car accident where no evidence of criminal driving has occurred)They shouldn't own them.

No, unfortunately there are no laws about children being under control. So they can send someone flying and cause a broken bone or worse and nothing whatsoever can or should be done about that. God forbid though that a dog having fun in a park or open area causes a problem.


There is a large park near me that has a large courtyard area with a caf! and a couple of shops (one selling plants and the other gift items). For quite a few years people have used the caf! with dog owners often being the only customers all through the winter (sitting out in rain and snow). On sunny days the courtyard used to be packed with dog owners with the majority of dogs sitting quietly and families with often children running around screaming, riding bikes round the tables or scooters. I twice saw incidents when a child on a bike or scooter banged into someone - no damage done so everything was fine.


Then one day a dog owner instead of ringing the bell on the door of the caf! so they could come and take your order (which is what you were meant to do as a dog walker on your own) tied their dog to the leg of a table and went inside. The dog was distressed at the owner leaving and tried to go after them. It wasn't a particularly big dog but the tables are light so it managed to drag it a little way and knocked into a woman. Quite why or how she didn't see a dog pulling a table who knows? Apparently the dog broke her watch and, guess what, dogs are now banned from the courtyard. Proof that children can do what they like but dogs can't.


I, and many other dog owners now boycott the caf! which apparently is now losing money (shame)

tinkerbell28

catkins wrote: »

Don't know where you live but am thankful I don't live there. All dogs kept on leads in a park!!! Never heard anything so ridiculous or unfair. Of course all the little darlings are allowed to run around and bump into people, bang their bikes into peoples legs etc. Very fair!




No, unfortunately there are no laws about children being under control. So they can send someone flying and cause a broken bone or worse and nothing whatsoever can or should be done about that. God forbid though that a dog having fun in a park or open area causes a problem.


There is a large park near me that has a large courtyard area with a caf! and a couple of shops (one selling plants and the other gift items). For quite a few years people have used the caf! with dog owners often being the only customers all through the winter (sitting out in rain and snow). On sunny days the courtyard used to be packed with dog owners with the majority of dogs sitting quietly and families with often children running around screaming, riding bikes round the tables or scooters. I twice saw incidents when a child on a bike or scooter banged into someone - no damage done so everything was fine.


Then one day a dog owner instead of ringing the bell on the door of the caf! so they could come and take your order (which is what you were meant to do as a dog walker on your own) tied their dog to the leg of a table and went inside. The dog was distressed at the owner leaving and tried to go after them. It wasn't a particularly big dog but the tables are light so it managed to drag it a little way and knocked into a woman. Quite why or how she didn't see a dog pulling a table who knows? Apparently the dog broke her watch and, guess what, dogs are now banned from the courtyard. Proof that children can do what they like but dogs can't.


I, and many other dog owners now boycott the caf! which apparently is now losing money (shame)

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.

People need to accept as dog owners, the law is clear. If they don't like it, don't get a dog. As an owner any injury/damage the buck stops with you, no excuses.

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.

From a dog owner. As I find most dog owners attitudes terrifying.

mentaljessie

Can I put this in to perspective a few years back 22 to be exact. I had my nose bitten off my face by a Border Collie (bone visible, referral to plastic surgery). I still have visible scarring to this day, which I could probably if wanted have reconstructive surgery for. My Dad told me to sue the owners and get things put right. Mum was more subtle and forthright and stated I'll speak to the owners, I will support you if you want to sue but the owners could loose their home. (Parents were divorced). Subsequently Sam the Border Collie was not eutshinased and wore a muzzle from that day forward.

Takeaway_Addict

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqwuB5F7DL8

Was the tackle like this?

GonzoAston

I think the OP has been dealt with unfairly by some posts in this thread.

A few years ago, my dod was on lead just about to go into the park, a runner came out of the bushes at the side where neither of us could see each other. I only noticed him after he fell over my dog (or my dog knocked him over. Im still not sure exactly how it happened as I was closing the gate to the park and only saw the aftermath). I waited with the guy to make sure he was ok and appologised quite a bit. He was ok and no serious injuries. This is where I feel the owner of the Lab let himself down. He said he was going to find help and never came back. I also think that the OP doesnt want to sue the owner, but claim on the insurance to help with any financial difficulties may arise from that.

People saying the OP should get a job or his partner should work from home. You dont know their personal details, so this shouldnt come into it.

I dont think this is part of the compansation culture. Yes it was an accident, I dont think anyone is disputing that, but an accident that caused his partner to break her ankle, have serious time off work and loss of earnings. I would doubt (my opinion) as he doesnt seem to be after a huge pay out, just to cover the losses involved. Its not unreasonable.

People comparing it to a child causing this is rediculous. Dogs taken outside the home should have to have insurance BY LAW I feel, same as car insurance.

When I was 3 I was attacked and had my ear bitten off by the neighbours dog. Various scars etc. Yes, the dog was put down, but that was the owners that decided that quickly afterwards.

Any responsible owner should have given their details to the OP and stuck around to help them. Maybe if they did that and showed that they actually cared the OP may have fealt differently about things, I probably would have.

Also, people telling the OP that if this minor incident could cause this much financial difficulty, what would happen if something worse were to happen. Come on, can anyone on this forum really afford to be on SSP for a while is a tad deluded. I know I couldnt afford to be off sick for a week at the moment, so I feel these comments have been really unfair. Everyones financial status changes. Can happen to any of us.

ash28

catkins wrote: »

Don't know where you live but am thankful I don't live there. All dogs kept on leads in a park!!! Never heard anything so ridiculous or unfair. Of course all the little darlings are allowed to run around and bump into people, bang their bikes into peoples legs etc. Very fair!




No, unfortunately there are no laws about children being under control. So they can send someone flying and cause a broken bone or worse and nothing whatsoever can or should be done about that. God forbid though that a dog having fun in a park or open area causes a problem.


There is a large park near me that has a large courtyard area with a caf! and a couple of shops (one selling plants and the other gift items). For quite a few years people have used the caf! with dog owners often being the only customers all through the winter (sitting out in rain and snow). On sunny days the courtyard used to be packed with dog owners with the majority of dogs sitting quietly and families with often children running around screaming, riding bikes round the tables or scooters. I twice saw incidents when a child on a bike or scooter banged into someone - no damage done so everything was fine.


Then one day a dog owner instead of ringing the bell on the door of the caf! so they could come and take your order (which is what you were meant to do as a dog walker on your own) tied their dog to the leg of a table and went inside. The dog was distressed at the owner leaving and tried to go after them. It wasn't a particularly big dog but the tables are light so it managed to drag it a little way and knocked into a woman. Quite why or how she didn't see a dog pulling a table who knows? Apparently the dog broke her watch and, guess what, dogs are now banned from the courtyard. Proof that children can do what they like but dogs can't.


I, and many other dog owners now boycott the caf! which apparently is now losing money (shame)

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.

mountainofdebt

On the assumption that the OP's partner was to make a claim then what would you advise her to claim for?

Personally I think she would only be able to claim for loss of earnings and perhaps pain and discomfort.

(just to take the discussion onto the next level...........whether she should or shouldn't seems to have become never the twain shall meet argument lol!)