[Closed] Dog owners liability

Yes - dog owner liable for damage the dog causes. Probably need court action tho to get recompense and its also likely IMO that a bad dog owner will not have pet insurance. The injured party may well have legal assistance as a part of their home insurance

Would the new highway code H1 reg have any impact on liability here? It certainly would if it were a child, not sure about dogs. The owner may have insurance, either pet insurance or through their home insurance.

Should have said nice part of Cheshire and said dog returned to barn conversion so guessing they will have insurance ! Thought it would be the case but wanted some guidance before giving the wife some advice... thanks!

Hopefully the fella has insurance that can chase the owner. Witness statements will be key.

AFAIK

Damages would be a civil matter, the injured person would have to sue for damages/compensation.

Could also report the dog owner to the police; dog on road off lead (if it was a designated road) Road Traffic Act 1988. Dog out of control in a public place, Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

I don't think that fits the "dangerously out of control" as defined in the dangerous dogs act in any way. It matters not tho - dog owners are liable for all damages the dog causes. Pretty much absolute.

It will be a battle, but assuming the cyclists has BC cover or similar, let them chase the owners.

Always get's me commuting - you see certain 'owners' who don't have control of their dogs. Same bloody woman two mornings running, her dog had bounded right in front of me, then started to chase me. Oh sorry ? Next time I'll suggest she keeps it on a lead.

Definitely one for lawyering up! They've obviously got all your details, but do they know who the runners were for their accounts too? Might be important if they are willing to state that the dog went back to that house and the subsequent conversation. No win, no fee ambulance chaser type lawyer if there's no BC/CTC cover.

As there was injuries involved, I'd report to the police too. May not be strictly necessary as there was no car involved, but it can't hurt.

Same bloody woman two mornings running, her dog had bounded right in front of me, then started to chase me. Oh sorry ? Next time I’ll suggest she keeps it on a lead.

If you're confident you can get to a speed where it just keeps up rather than caching you, encourage it along and see how far you can get it from it's owner. 😈

Dog owner will be covered under their home insurance even if they don’t have pet cover (a mate of mine doesn’t, he has a DD to a savings account to deal with vet bills)

Injured party needs to find any kind of legal cover they have be it home insurance BC or whatever if the dog owner isn’t playing ball, no idea how you’d go about finding out who their house is insured with but I’m sure a legal eagle should.

Martin should go through his house insurance for them to pursue the owner, his house insurance should have some legal aid cover. Hope he’s feeling better soon.

Thanks folks , I've asked if he's in BC as Leigh Day made it pretty easy for me, his wife took phone numbers of a few witnesses plus neighbour who was going to drive his bike back to her so should be ok on that front

Dog owner. Not something I'd ever want to happen but we're insured. I'd be mortified and doing everything I could to help in these circumstances if my mutt did that.

Hope the poor chap has a good recovery.

I think it might meet the threshold for the Dangerous Dogs Act?

A dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person or assistance dog, whether or not it actually does so, (section 10(3) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

It’s not relevant to the dangerous dogs act, that relates to aggressive dogs not an accident like this.
You are liable though. How you get to the point of successfully claiming though if they for instance deny that it was their dog. Need some fairly cast iron witness statements I guess including someone who confirmed with them at the time that it was their dog.

It’s not relevant to the dangerous dogs act, that relates to aggressive dogs not an accident like this.

Ah,I googled "out of control" so may have missed the context.

There is another older bit of legislation, might be RTA.

I think I remember asking this a few years ago (hypothetically) - it seemed that liability on the owner was in no way clear.

There are various bits of legislation and also a lot of case law. Its pretty much iron clad that you are liable for damage caused by your dog

One of the older road traffic acts has a bit about a dog must be on a lead on a footway adjacent to a road

There is case law about your dog must be under control at all times ( maybe statute)

I'm pretty sure that you have to prove that the dog owner was negligent before they are liable for an RTA. No idea what the threshold for negligence is though.

not having the dog under control should be good enough. If the dog causes a cyclist to crash then the dog is not under proper control and you have no defense

"The legal website Desktop Lawyer points out that as a pet owner whose animal has damaged someone else’s property you may be liable in accordance with the principles of ‘common law negligence’. Basically, the law imposes a duty on any owner, or person responsible, to ensure that their animal isn’t likely to injure their neighbour.

But as the owner, you’re in a tough position, because the claimant doesn’t need to prove you had actual knowledge that the animal was dangerous. They just have to show that damage was ‘reasonably foreseeable’."

https://www.churchill.com/pet-insurance/magazine/dogs-third-party-liability

I think failure to keep them under control ie safely on your own property would be negligent - so if the dog ran out and caused an accident then it would be negligent as long as you can prove it happened.

Negligence is a 3 part test
1) is there a duty of care?" In this case yes as we all have a general duty of care not to hurt someone or damage their property
2) was the duty of care breached? yes
3) is there financial losses? Yes

Advice from lawyers.

https://www.asdonline.co.uk/advice-centre/road-traffic-accidents-caused-by-animals-your-complete-guide

Non-dangerous species
Litigation using the Animals Act for non-dangerous species is notoriously complicated, since there are numerous tests that a case must pass before clear liability can be shown on the part of the owner or keeper of the non-dangerous animal.

The owners are being complete dicks though

I hit an escaped dog in my car, writing it off and killing the dog many years ago (pitch black I didn't see it at all until it was far too late), the owners house insurance advised/guided him to say that the dog was secure in the garden and 'someone' must have let it out..... So owner can't be proved to be negligent, my car insurance stopped investigating and I lost my no claims. The house was literally miles from any other house, so the odds of a random stranger happening to walk by and open the gate were pretty low you would think.....

If you’re confident you can get to a speed where it just keeps up rather than caching you, encourage it along and see how far you can get it from it’s owner. 😈

I found myself in this situation a little while back.
I was riding along a local riverbank which is an official bridleway and encounter a fella walking his 2 dogs, both off lead. As I approach, i call out to let him know I’m about to pass but then notice he’s got headphones in and can’t hear me. I give him and the dogs a wide birth and carry on past.
At this point his dogs start barking and run after me being quite aggressive snapping at my heels. I began to out run them and then I realise that the dogs were quite persistent and maybe I could have some fun. They followed me for a couple of miles before I lost them. I can only hope that the owner found his dogs and in future be aware that his fury friends have a tendency to chase random cyclists.😀

Entirely pathetic.

Entirely pathetic

I would really like to know what you would have done in the same situation?
As a dog owner of over 30 years I would say that I’m a fairly good judge of a dogs temperament and these two large collie cross were overly aggressive, not showing any signs of being playful. Had I stopped I’m sure I would have been bitten.
This thread is about owner liability and had i have been bitten I’m fairly sure the owner would have had a much bigger problem than the on he found himself with.

Voluntary code of conduct innit. Your mutt refuses to stop or head back by tge third recall then it should not be off its lead in an area with public access.
FEnton.

Crossed posts perhaps?

replying to a deleted post maybe? FWIW I've been in that situation before - "luring" a snapping dog away from it's owner... not out of malice, but because I wasn't about to stop and get bitten!! Not ideal of course but as above, not your fault, and what else are you supposed to do?

Your mutt refuses to stop or head back by tge third recall then it should not be off its lead in an area with public access.

And that shows how dog owners acceptable standards of behaviour differ from the non dog owner and their legal responsibilities

A dog must be under control at all time. It must come to call if not on a lead. If it doesn't come to call first time it should always be on a lead.

I know its not meant like that but it shows the gulf in understanding what is acceptable