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

nero33

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?!

Is this hypothetical child on an extendable lead?

marcia_

Just_An_Opinion said:

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. 

Guarantee you're the kind of person that will set up a go fund me page when the dog needs vet bills because you for whatever reason (ignorance or inability) dont have insurance

 No I self insure and have savings should I need it. Pet insurance is ridiculous the amount of times they reject claims. 

marcia_

Erica51 said:

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. 

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. 

Perhaps you should!

 I did at one point until they rejected a claim because I paid the initial consultation myself, they then refused to pay ongoing fees. Waste of money imao if you can self inure by saving the same premium. 

ollythecollie

It's a sad reflection on the modern world how so many people are always on the lookout for a reason to try and screw some money out of everyone they encounter.  The trend is driven by bloodsuckers in the legal so-called profession are the only ones who gain from it all.  Cyclists are so often at the front of the queue with their hands out when they think they can get a few quid, yet are also quickest to run off and dodge liability from the problems they cause.  This is apparent in the responses here.  But they aren't the root of the issue.  The culture of suing at the slightest opportunity will bring more and more detriment to society if it isn't halted soon.  Where there's blame there's a claim benefits no-one outwith parastitic law firms.  Everyone from a dogwalker to a surgeon is reduced to a host wallet for their greed.  The habit is already way out of hand and requires some urgent action to prevent sliding into a mass of litigation which will eventually choke human interaction and lead to an ultimate breakdown of society.

Expanding_Bank

I’m sorry that you were injured through the negligence of the dog owner. Send an invoice with everything itemised in your claim for compensation. It’ll be considerable and put E&OE in case you have any future complications. You might have legal cover on something to do this for you.

Krellis

ripongrammargirl said:

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. 

So, to put this to bed: Road Tax is an archaic and outdated term which has been replaced with VED - Vehicle Excise Duty, based on the emissions from the vehicle. As biclycles, etc. do no emit any emissions other than farts and strong language, they are exempt.

As for insurance: this is available for cyclists and cheap (circa £25 a year from various providers). Third party liability for the dog is also available as part of the Dog's Trust membership fee, which is £23 a year and also money to a good cause.

As for the special lanes especially for cyclists, yes these exist, paid for using money from the government coffers, however, pedestrians also use the roads, horses use roads, traction engines use the roads, milk floats use the roads..... not all of these have insurance and registration plates. So, historically if it's animal or human-powered (including someone on foot), it doesn't require plates or insurance (however sensible it may seem). 

My 20p worth (accounting for current inflation).

MarkyMark1064

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. 

Best you keep your pets under close control then.

MarkyMark1064

This is an easy one, the answer is, yes.

JohnMclean

As both a cyclist and a dog walker, I pay annually for insurances (different policies) that covers me for bike accidents that causes significant damage to bike and me, and a policy that will cover damages sustained by a 3rd party if my dog is 'at fault' (although technically it is me at fault if the dog is the cause, as in your case too).

I'd say that the bike/hemet/clothes damage warrants a claim.
Your injuries and recovery sound significant - if you were self employed there could be a huge loss of earnings.
Even for suffering and impact on your health / mental health, I am sure a greedy solicitor would pursue a rather large payout! Just think of all those (some fake) whiplash claims in tiny car accidents a few years back!

This is a 'moral' question you laid out. Therefore, if the dog walker was a poor old lady with no insurance cover and your claim would drain her financially and send her into poverty, no heating, little food this winter, then morally, its not very kind.

If however the dog walker has insurance that would cover this 3rd party injury and damage ( I'm not an insurance expert, but I' pretty sure some home insurance policies may even cover this sort of 3rd party liability -I am sure someone will agree or correct me here), then I would pursue a claim.
The financial looser there will be the insurance company (boohoo what shame) so your only moral question will be  - is it morally OK to take money of an insurance company, mmhh easy answer.

silverwhistle

ollythecollie said:

I  Cyclists are so often at the front of the queue with their hands out when they think they can get a few quid, yet are also quickest to run off and dodge liability from the problems they cause.  This is apparent in the responses here.  But they aren't the root of the issue.  The culture of suing at the slightest opportunity will bring more and more detriment to society if it isn't halted soon. 

So assuming you read the OP, how much pain, suffering and financial loss do you think it reasonable to claim for? Never? Death? Permanently crippled. Do tell.