Dog injured at holiday cottage...what to do

Takmon

star2sparkle wrote: »

Takmon, I think we might be going round in circles on that point. If they have to make a safety measure during a second risk assessment, that demonstrates that they were negligent in the first as it was foreseeable and therefore, this could be used against them. Ensuring an accident doesn't happen again obviously means it shouldn't have occurred in the first place.
The drop isn't hidden, we just didn't go to that part of the garden, as the garden is very big and we weren't there all the time. The agency simply didn't do the risk assessment properly. Which they have basically already admitted to.

As someone who has experience in carrying out Risk Assessments i know that statement is legally wrong. No matter how much you say it doesn't change that fact. You really need to do some of your own research online (try the HSE website for a start) before trying to make out someone is wrong.

Updating a risk assessment after an accident has occurred is a common thing and it usually results in control measures being put in place. But this does not automatically mean the original risk assessment was carried out incorrectly.

You also need to accept that you were negligent in letting your dog have full run of a garden off the lead before you have checked to make sure the area is safe.

preable

As the dogs owner you are responsible if there was not a fence why let it in the garden?

Gavin83

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

In terms of OP pursuing this matter if they wish they should seek legal advice is the advice I would give as they may have a claim for compensation beyond any direct loses suffered.

For what exactly?

Aylesbury_Duck

Gavin83 wrote: »

For what exactly?

Their vet bill, or perhaps their pet insurance excess? I asked what the cost was because I thought it might be a way to gauge the suitability of the letting agent's offer.

I got no answer. I suspect there was no vet bill.

macman

Certainly puts me off renting a holiday cottage-if I had one...

Gavin83

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Their vet bill, or perhaps their pet insurance excess? I asked what the cost was because I thought it might be a way to gauge the suitability of the letting agent's offer.

I got no answer. I suspect there was no vet bill.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said "beyond any direct losses suffered" where as vet bills or insurance excesses are certainly direct losses. I assume they meant extra compensation for something, it was this something I was trying to establish.

I also doubt there was any vet bill but I also doubt the OP will be back to answer the very reasonable questions put to them.

It does also raise the interesting question of even if negligent would the agent be responsible for expensive vet bills? In the eyes of the law pets are considered nothing more than property. If I severely damaged someones cheap runaround car which was worth £1k but the repair costs would be £5k I'd be expected to pay them the £1k, despite their attachment to the car. Similarly if the pets vet bills came to £6k but the cost of having the dog put to sleep was £200 and the cost of a new same breed dog was £1k I'm thinking their liability would be limited to £1200. Of course what the owner chooses to do after this is their decision.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Gavin83 wrote: »

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said "beyond any direct losses suffered" where as vet bills or insurance excesses are certainly direct losses. I assume they meant extra compensation for something, it was this something I was trying to establish.

Personal injury claims pay out more than direct loses, whether that applies to pets I have no idea (hence the use of the word may in my post), there are plenty of no win, no fee companies and some solicitors who offer a free half hour for the OP to talk with to find out.

custardy

star2sparkle wrote: »

I just forgot how some people could be on this forum. Do you do this all day? So many posts. Wow. How about getting a real job?

Does a 'real job' mean you are self sufficient and not reliant on the likes of benefits?
Since you raised it, you could perhaps give some examples of real jobs for everyone on the forum to aspire to.

Gavin83

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

Personal injury claims pay out more than direct loses, whether that applies to pets I have no idea (hence the use of the word may in my post), there are plenty of no win, no fee companies and some solicitors who offer a free half hour for the OP to talk with to find out.

No, you can't claim personal injury for your dog. As I said in my previous post legally they're considered nothing more than property.

Given what's been written on the thread I'm not even convinced you could claim personal injury if it had been a human injured in these circumstances.