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

maddogwoman

I would ask her if she has pet insurance and if she has then get the details and claim on that. The owner wont be out of pocket then and you will be compensated for your injuries and bike.  If she doesnt have pet insurance she may have public liability cover as part of her house insurance so you may be able to claim on that. I would not claim through a court tho as been there done that and its time consuming, expensive and stressful for months.

horsewithnoname

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?!

It wasn’t a child, it was a dog. Both should be under control anyway. If her own dog injured her then she can sue herself, but it’s not the cyclist’s fault. 

[Deleted User]

marcia_ said:

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. 

Hope you can cover the cost of any claims against you then.  

dtl

olly300 said:

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. 

"If a human walks or runs into a cyclist then they aren't liable."????   Sorry Olly, but yes, they are liable.   If you cause someone to suffer injury or loss, regardless of whether you cause it directly or by failing to properly control your property (e.g. a dog), you are liable.   Even if it's your child, you are still liable because they are your responsibility, at least up until a certain age.

[Deleted User]

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?!

We do know the details, it is clearly stated that a lady with a dog on an extendable lead didn't have it under control and it ran into the road.  Full stop.  We are asked to respond to that, not consider alternative situations.   I think people are entitled to claim due to the negligence of someone who should have been responsible, whether with child, dog, etc., anything that causes damage to others through carelessness.  The woman may wish she hadn't stopped, if she is totally irresponsible and dishonest, but she may feel worse if she didn't, and was later identified and traced.

AccountantJim

I don't really see the dilemma here. The dog owner is liable and you should claim for your costs, any ongoing healthcare needs, and loss of earnings. 

Maybe the owner will learn to control her dog in future. If she can't, she shouldn't take it out in public. 

XYZetc

Extendable dog leads should be banned because they reduce the degree of control the owner has over their dog.

Lindamar_

Yes, she is liable and was negligent. Off course you are within your rights to make a claim against her. It's not your problem if she has chosen not to have liability insurance for her pet ownership. You could have been killed and left behind a family with kids to feed and bring up.

ripongrammargirl

Yes, there is a claim to be made here as the dog was out of control on a long lead by a road. Short leads for roads, long lead for parks or big spaces.
However, this is also a major reason why cyclists should be made to buy road tax and insurance. They use the roads (and have special lanes just for them) but still abuse the laws/ rules of the road (running red lights, ploughing into pedestrians on crossings  etc which have clips all over the internet). If this cyclist had had insurance then it would have paid out for the bike and possibly personal injury and possessions. 

All road users should be taxed and insured with registration plates so they can be fined etc for breaking the law. 

But back to original question, yes this is definitely a legitimate claim as the dog was out of control in a public area. Even the best of owners can have a mishap if something out of the ordinary occurs and this is when pet insurance with public liability is essential.

Hope you are feeling better. 

SStitanic

If you were cycling on the road yes. If you were cycling on the pavement no.