Steph M Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 What would you say had the dogs not been playing, but recalling back t their owner? They're certainly under effective control. It just seems so silly to be trying to pin fault. I just tripped over a loose tile and stubbed my toe. Can I sue my landlord? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Obviously the person would have to get some legal advice. We can only guess here. The dogs obviously caused the accident as they came from behind the lady, headphones or not its difficult to avoid that however not sure suing the owners would work as it was an off lead park. Maybe the council has a public liability policy that could be claimed from ? Its not a question that can be answered here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylvie Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The tree branch falling and killing is an interesting one that was mentioned. There was a recent publicised case about this very thing occurring. A young child tragically died as a result. There is now an enquiry as I understand. It appears it was an accident of nature. But is that the way it will be viewed legally? Time will tell. I think I read somewhere of cases (branches damaging neighboring properties) where the one responsible for the maintenance of the tree (land owner or council) can be held responsible as if the tree was properly looked after, branches (of reasonable size) should not fall off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wildthing Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 When I go anywhere these days, I am very conscious of what is in front, at the side and behind me. I could be attacked by anything from any direction and would like to be able to give an accurate description to the Police if it was a human who had attacked me. I keep my ears and eyes open - no mobile or headphones. It is not safe anywhere these days in public, so I try and take care of myself at all times. Should I happen to be walking in a dog park or an area where dogs are off lead, I would be particularly careful of where the dogs were in relation to me at all times. Unfortunately, I do not trust any dog owner to have affective control of their dog/s. ETA Personally, I think both parties are at fault in this case as they were both negligent - head phones so distracted and not paying attention to surroundings and dogs not under affective control from their owners. Actually neither are likely to have been negligent. Negligent is a legal term with a very specific meaning. Oxford dictionary definition states quote "Lack of proper care or attention (piece of) carelessness. No mention of it being a strictly legal term. Perhaps you could provide the very specific legal meaning for me. Always happy to learn something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Who is to blame and who would win a lawsuit are two different questions. I agree with the majority . . . no one is to blame. . . it was an accident. My guess is, had it come to a lawsuit, the party with the better lawyer would win . .. unless the judge was predisposed one way or the other. Details like how the park was posted (enter at your own risk?) could be important. As Zeebie noted, the lady who got hurt weakened her case by initially refusing help and not taking names. It's like getting into a fender bender and waving the other car off when they offered to exchange details. Then changing your mind and trying to hunt the driver down. If I were on a jury for such a case, it would bother me that she remembered only one of the two dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerB Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Chalk it up to an accident and get on with life. No one's at fault, no one set out for that to happen, no one had any intention for the dogs to run into the lady's legs. It was in an off leash area. A very famous philosopher once said "Sh!t Happens" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerB Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 And if this came to a law suit, i would hope the judges ruling, would heavily involve the terms - "You are wasting my time, go away" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danois Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 When I go anywhere these days, I am very conscious of what is in front, at the side and behind me. I could be attacked by anything from any direction and would like to be able to give an accurate description to the Police if it was a human who had attacked me. I keep my ears and eyes open - no mobile or headphones. It is not safe anywhere these days in public, so I try and take care of myself at all times. Should I happen to be walking in a dog park or an area where dogs are off lead, I would be particularly careful of where the dogs were in relation to me at all times. Unfortunately, I do not trust any dog owner to have affective control of their dog/s. ETA Personally, I think both parties are at fault in this case as they were both negligent - head phones so distracted and not paying attention to surroundings and dogs not under affective control from their owners. Actually neither are likely to have been negligent. Negligent is a legal term with a very specific meaning. Oxford dictionary definition states quote "Lack of proper care or attention (piece of) carelessness. No mention of it being a strictly legal term. Perhaps you could provide the very specific legal meaning for me. Always happy to learn something new. Here is a useful summary of the law of negligence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence - including the elements that need to be established etc before a successful claim can be made. As I mentioned - negligence is a very specific legal concept. Of course that does not preclude people using the word generally but when talking about it in the context of these types of discussions it means more than what is written in a dictionary. It is sufficiently complex that you spend the best part of 6 months learning it at Law School as part of the Law of Torts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flame ryder Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 If she did sue and won there is a possibility that council would review their off lead park maybe of even closing it down to dogs as to avoid further cases. Other councils may follow suit. It all goes against us the general public and spoils the fun for future generations. Remember the good old days of rollerskating and mega playgrounds? All shut down due to public liability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave73 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 My wife had a incident like this but it was a leashed area and our GSD and Ridgeback were on leads and a large dog off lead ran up aggressively and my wife tried to stand between our 2 and the other dog and got tangled in the leads as the Ridgeback was trying to protect my wife and she tore knee ligaments and the women quickly grabbed her dog and said nothing didn't help and took off into the night. We went there for weeks at the same time and different times to see if she was there but she never turned up again, probably cause she knew my wife had really hurt herself and it was her fault. Told her next time let our 2 go they can take care of themselves and she said she didn't want the other dog to get hurt!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I've still got the crutches from when mine and my brother's Labs barrelled me while playing zoomies... my own silly fault for not paying enough attention to the crazy no brain Labs doing zoomies. I must say, the incident has made me MUCH more aware of dogs playing zoomies nearby now... no matter where I may be... As for the lady in the OP, I'd think that coming back 2 months later and only identifying one of the 2 dogs that knocked her over to be target for her medical bills, would kind of make it difficult to make her case - wouldn't it? Especially if there were other witnesses to the incident... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper21 Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 All very interesting responses. I tend to think that headphones are a really bad idea when out walking anywhere, let alone a busy dog park. While it's largely irrelevant, I do know that the Rotty is very well trained, and from what I've seen of the Lab he appeared OK training-wise too. I don't think there are any control/training issues with either dog in this instance, I think it's more inattention by the owners. While I doubt that either would have had time to give a recall command, they could have shouted something at them to interrupt their path/behaviour or reduce the impact. While I agree that blaming anyone for this incident is pointless, I just thought it would make for an interesting conversation. Most of the people I talked to about it think the injured woman was at fault for being inattentive in an off-leash dog park. A while after that accident, I got bowled over by a mixed breed dog at an off-leash park. I fell back onto the dog with all my weight, and he bit my wrist as I went down. I took that as a bit of Karma that I didn't pass on the details of the Rottie to the woman ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wildthing Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) When I go anywhere these days, I am very conscious of what is in front, at the side and behind me. I could be attacked by anything from any direction and would like to be able to give an accurate description to the Police if it was a human who had attacked me. I keep my ears and eyes open - no mobile or headphones. It is not safe anywhere these days in public, so I try and take care of myself at all times. Should I happen to be walking in a dog park or an area where dogs are off lead, I would be particularly careful of where the dogs were in relation to me at all times. Unfortunately, I do not trust any dog owner to have affective control of their dog/s. ETA Personally, I think both parties are at fault in this case as they were both negligent - head phones so distracted and not paying attention to surroundings and dogs not under affective control from their owners. Actually neither are likely to have been negligent. Negligent is a legal term with a very specific meaning. Oxford dictionary definition states quote "Lack of proper care or attention (piece of) carelessness. No mention of it being a strictly legal term. Perhaps you could provide the very specific legal meaning for me. Always happy to learn something new. Here is a useful summary of the law of negligence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence - including the elements that need to be established etc before a successful claim can be made. As I mentioned - negligence is a very specific legal concept. Of course that does not preclude people using the word generally but when talking about it in the context of these types of discussions it means more than what is written in a dictionary. It is sufficiently complex that you spend the best part of 6 months learning it at Law School as part of the Law of Torts. I looked it up on wiki, which of course does not provide totally reliable information. I am guessing you have some sort of legal influence in your life. I am an ex Registered Nurse and my training included law with lectures being given by Pat Staunton. I also have an interest in law as such, so understand the legal implication of the word negligence as per the wiki article. In this instance, I would still say that both parties had a degree of negligence in that they did not use enough caution knowing they could be injured in such an area. Dogs off lead and more difficult to control and the headphones being on the ears (not necessarily with noise emitting from them) which inhibits the ability to hear as well as you could without them on the ears. Personally, I think it is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other at 'fault' here. Common sense should prevail, but common sense is not common these days. Edited March 6, 2014 by Wildthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest donatella Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Her own fault. If you swim in the ocean and you get eaten by a shark who's at fault? It's a dog park, an offleash one at that, there are going to be off leash dogs, caution is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeebie Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 With regard local councils I am not sure about any other state or territory but can speak on Brisbane Council with regards responsibility for maintenance of area's under their care and durisdiction. If you as a resident or visitor to an area NOTICE a faulty peice of public equipment (bench broken/toilet damaged/overgrown land/ lights blown in public walkway)it is your reponsibility to photograph damage and send in a email or letter or phone and report same. As if this has been reported and not attended to a case of liability can be undertaken against said council. However they have a rule of 3 which they use in their defence 1. Was their a construction site not sign posted and sufficiently blocked off. 2. Was the lighting insufficient. 3 Was their overgrown grass preventing you seeing the problem. So say for instance you are out jogging and trip on a lifted peice of path or a fallen tree branch obstructing your path, or fall in a hole you did not see. The reply will be "You have a duty of care to take care when undertaking your own recreational activities". No case Tah Tah. Sure you can fight it and go to court but they being a semi government organisation will win and you will be left pennyless Again from first hand experiencing this situation I know how difficult it is having stepped into a hole on the edge of a footpath when about to cross the road and falling onto road as a result narrowly being avoided by an oncoming car. After months of investigation and buck passing firstly to main roads saying they were responsible for this particular Kerb and channelling, and eventually agreeing it was under council care, they then said it was contributary negligence as I had not looked where I was going, if I had I would have seen the hole!!!! They do follow up with a big consultative process and try to fix any problem so it will not occur again as in case of cyclist injured by flying debris from a large tractor slasher, rule is now when slashing or mowing being done they must signpost area to forewarn anyone entering area, so if you sustain injury their repsonse' well you should not have been there it was signed DANGER mowing in place. They did have to pay out in the cyclist situation. As for the very very sad case in Victoria where playground tree fell, this will come back to school be it public or privately owned taking the full brunt of the law as they have a duty to undertake full regular stocktake of all facilities inside and out to ascertain NO DANGER is present, repair/replace/modify etc this includes making sure No poisonous plants on grounds, trees that could be a danger being lopped or removed, checking for dangerous insects living in trees/bushes, playing surfaces not warn/structurally safe etc and the list goes on and on and on. No amount of blame or compensation is going to bring back the child that was lost or undo the injuries to all those involved so prevention is far better the cure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I looked it up on wiki, which of course does not provide totally reliable information. I am guessing you have some sort of legal influence in your life. I am an ex Registered Nurse and my training included law with lectures being given by Pat Staunton. I also have an interest in law as such, so understand the legal implication of the word negligence as per the wiki article. :laugh: to say the least. Danois can tell you what they do in real life if they wish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Her own fault. If you swim in the ocean and you get eaten by a shark who's at fault? It's a dog park, an offleash one at that, there are going to be off leash dogs, caution is needed. Apparently it's the sharks fault, if you're in WA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest donatella Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Yes well good point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wildthing Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I looked it up on wiki, which of course does not provide totally reliable information. I am guessing you have some sort of legal influence in your life. I am an ex Registered Nurse and my training included law with lectures being given by Pat Staunton. I also have an interest in law as such, so understand the legal implication of the word negligence as per the wiki article. :laugh: to say the least. Danois can tell you what they do in real life if they wish At least I did not make any assumptions that there was a legal influence, but I also cannot assume that the poster is a registered solicitor either. Cloak and dagger games are not my 'thing' - I find it somewhat puerile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danois Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I really don't get your point around cloak and dagger games. Rebanne was respecting the forum rules about not putting up personal information about other members. You can safely assume that I am familiar with the laws of negligence - and public liability insurance. And the wiki article is reliable otherwise I would have not chosen it - it was the more user friendly for a lay person than a scholarly article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now