Money Moral Dilemma: Should I claim compensation from the woman whose dog knocked me off my bicycle?

MSE_Kelvin

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

I was in a bike accident where a lady with a dog on an extendable lead didn't have it under control and it ran into the road, hitting my wheel. I went over the handlebars, fracturing a clavicle. I've had an operation to put a plate in and will be off work for six to eight weeks. There was £150 of damage to my bike, my £30 helmet needs replacing and my clothes were cut off by the paramedics. I've endured a lot of pain and suffered post-surgical depression, but I'm unsure whether to make a claim against the lady for compensation as it was an accident and her dog was also injured. Is it right to ask for something after what I've gone through?

Unfortunately the MSE team can't answer Money Moral Dilemma questions as contributions are emailed in or suggested in person. They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value. Remember that behind each dilemma there is a real person so, as the forum rules say, please keep it kind and keep it clean.

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.
Got a Money Moral Dilemma of your own? Suggest an MMD.
View past Money Moral Dilemmas.

Mark_d

There is no reason you should be out-of-pocket due to something like this.  You should absolutely get solicitors to make a claim for this.  It is likely that the dog's liability cover will pay all your costs...but given that the lady was negligent using her extendable lead, it seems fair that she faces the consequence of her negligence.

FlorayG

I don't see where there is a moral question in this - the woman was clearly liable

marcia_

 Yes she was to blame but who says she has liability cover for her dog. In all likelihood she hasn't and any claim will be fruitless and bankrupt you both 

Nasqueron

marcia_ said:

 Yes she was to blame but who says she has liability cover for her dog. In all likelihood she hasn't and any claim will be fruitless and bankrupt you both 

This is a bit of hyperbole, not a chance they will be bankrupt, many people have public liability via house or pet insurance etc

marcia_

Nasqueron said:

marcia_ said:

 Yes she was to blame but who says she has liability cover for her dog. In all likelihood she hasn't and any claim will be fruitless and bankrupt you both 

This is a bit of hyperbole, not a chance they will be bankrupt, many people have public liability via house or pet insurance etc

 And many more dont. I dont i have pets with no insurance and home contents insurance without legal cover. 

rollingmoon

FlorayG said:

I don't see where there is a moral question in this - the woman was clearly liable

Yep, whoever makes these up is clearly slipping... dog owner 100% liable, other party appoints one of those no-win-no-fee ambulance chasers.

kimwp

Seems fair to sue. She wasn't in control of her dog and it's caused you significant financial loss and pain. 

mlz1413

Whilst I feel sorry for the person who came off his bike, i would like to know if they would he also sue a lady for letting a child run into the road and causing the same injuries?

We don't know the full details,  was the lady negligent or did the lead fail?
Was she pulled over too?
Was there a cat or squirrel involved?
Was there a loud noise, firework or horn blaring,  that shocked everyone?
Did another pedestrian make the dog step off the path? Etc etc


I am assuming the lady must have stopped and made sure the cyclist was helped and voluntarily gave her details, so maybe have a conversation with her about insurance cover.

I wonder if she will wish she hadn't stopped?!

pollypenny

Yes.  The dog should not have been on an extendable lead as it was not in her control.  At least the OP should claim for the bike and helmet.  

The comparison with a child is irrelevant. 

olly300

mlz1413 said:

Whilst I feel sorry for the person who came off his bike, i would like to know if they would he also sue a lady for letting a child run into the road and causing the same injuries?

We don't know the full details,  was the lady negligent or did the lead fail?
Was she pulled over too?
Was there a cat or squirrel involved?
Was there a loud noise, firework or horn blaring,  that shocked everyone?
Did another pedestrian make the dog step off the path? Etc etc


I am assuming the lady must have stopped and made sure the cyclist was helped and voluntarily gave her details, so maybe have a conversation with her about insurance cover.

I wonder if she will wish she hadn't stopped?!

There is always someone who is unable to make a distinction between a animal and a small human. Like they are completely unaware that in law and in nature they are completely different. 

A dog by law is expected to be under their owner's control. A dog is considered property. 

A child does not have an owner. A child has people or a person responsible for their welfare.

If a human walks or runs into a cyclist then they aren't liable. If a human in a vehicle harms a cyclist they are. This is because they have harmed the cyclist with their property which should be under their control.