Who Is At Fault

[Scottsmum]

Tough one. We had a similar conversation at home last night. We have a bit of a dodgy driveway which ends in a ditch and a very blind corner which people speed near. Yesterday as I was slowly exiting I frightened a lady who wasn't paying attention. Had I been one of my neighbours who often speeds I probably would have hit her but the fact is - she wasn't aware of her environment.

I think its the same thing. You need to take responsibility for your own personal safety and be aware of your surroundings when you;re out and about. I nearly walked into a telegraph pole while reading my phone tonight - I wouldn't sue telstra for it. My own fault.

Also if she was in an off leash area with big dogs she should have been keeping tabs on them too.

That said, I'm sorry she was hurt.

[Nic.B]

I have been bowled over more than once by my own dogs and my rescues (large breeds) doing zoomies. One minuite I am standing up the next on am on my bum :laugh: my fault though we were at home and I was not watching them 100% if I had been I would have been able to correct them as they approached. Every single time I have had my back to them hanging out washing or gardening.

I dont visit dog parks though if I did and my dogs were in that zone with someone else about I would get them to settle and play some other games until the area was free.

I know that my dogs have the ability to put people on their bum on occasion in that situation.

Having said that, if you visit a dog park you also need to be aware of what is going on and your surroundings.

[Mystiqview]

Personally - accidents happen. I can see both sides - loss of income, medical expenses etc and the woman should have been more aware of her surroundings.

However - technically, the dog owners are responsible for the actions of the dogs. They are bound by legislation to have "effective control" of their animals. Even though this was an off lead park and a resonable person would expect dogs to be running around and also be at risk of an accident.

Are the dog owners negligent? Depends on the legal representatives if this went to court. Depends on your point of view whether the dog owners were aware of the woman and what/if any steps were taken to prevent the dogs from running in her direction and causing injury.

If such a thing ended up in court - I think it could fall either way. I think personally though, it would lean more in favour of the woman than the dog owners.

On a side note, my 4x4 club are exploring similar guidance from lawyers. Another club has banned dogs on camping trips because of some incidents involving members dogs. Essentially the committee is worried that if someone is injured or bitten by a dog while on a club trip, the injured party can sue the committee for allowing the dog to come on the trip.

In our by laws it has " a dog must be on lead at all times". Legal advice is this is admitting there is a risk - similar to "beware of the dog sign" on your fence. If someone trips over said leash - you can be liable. Legal advice- keep it vague " a dog must be under control by owner at all times".

Waivers are often drummed up by legal houses to drum up business, and can easily be stepped on when disputing in court. Basically not wort the paper they are printed on.

In essence. It is a grey area and so real right answer. It depends on your lawyer.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

There are deaf people in the world - so the headphones by themselves are not a contributing factor.

If it was a deaf person walking their dog that got skittled - would you blame them for being deaf in a park where dogs are allowed off lead. Also - if I'm wearing headphones - I can usually hear what is going on around me too. Not that I wear them in public places (airplanes excepted).

The rules for off lead dogs in public spaces require effective control at all times. So the council / police would have to assume that the dogs were under the owner's effective control so the dog owners are responsible for the injury and if it was my dog - I'd feel responsible for costs. Tho I have been scammed this way when my dog jumped on someone's car door to say hello to his dog when he called my dog...

Great.

Most people don't carry insurance that covers damage their dog might do to people or property out and about.

Maybe we should.

If it was a kangaroo that skittled the lady - bad luck. Nobody is in control of the roo. But it's someone's dog who is supposed to be under effective control - so owner responsible.

I am really careful these days after my dog got into a game of zoomies with a lab - and the lab skittled the lab's owner because of it. Both the lab and the owner were very slow to get up after but they didn't blame me or my dog, but I could have stopped it. Now I make a lot of noise so the dogs know they're approaching something (me or a fence or other people). And if I think there is not enough room for prang free zoomies, I call my dog back to me or stop her.

If it was a jogger that wasn't paying attention and pranged the lady - who would be at fault then. A person walking across a public park has a reasonable expectation of not being pranged by dogs, bikes, children, joggers, lawnmowers from behind.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

There are deaf people in the world - so the headphones by themselves are not a contributing factor.

If it was a deaf person walking their dog that got skittled - would you blame them for being deaf in a park where dogs are allowed off lead. Also - if I'm wearing headphones - I can usually hear what is going on around me too. Not that I wear them in public places (airplanes excepted).

The rules for off lead dogs in public spaces require effective control at all times. So the council / police would have to assume that the dogs were under the owner's effective control so the dog owners are responsible for the injury and if it was my dog - I'd feel responsible for costs. Tho I have been scammed this way when my dog jumped on someone's car door to say hello to his dog when he called my dog...

Great.

Most people don't carry insurance that covers damage their dog might do to people or property out and about.

Maybe we should.

If it was a kangaroo that skittled the lady - bad luck. Nobody is in control of the roo. But it's someone's dog who is supposed to be under effective control - so owner responsible.

I am really careful these days after my dog got into a game of zoomies with a lab - and the lab skittled the lab's owner because of it. Both the lab and the owner were very slow to get up after but they didn't blame me or my dog, but I could have stopped it. Now I make a lot of noise so the dogs know they're approaching something (me or a fence or other people). And if I think there is not enough room for prang free zoomies, I call my dog back to me or stop her.

If it was a jogger that wasn't paying attention and pranged the lady - who would be at fault then. A person walking across a public park has a reasonable expectation of not being pranged by dogs, bikes, children, joggers, lawnmowers from behind.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

duplicate (not patient enough)

Edited March 7, 2014 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[~Anne~]

It doesn't sound like a dedicated dog park either. The op states it was an off leash/sports oval area. Members of the public playing sport and off leash dogs? Sounds a bit like a recipe for problems anyway; ball chasers and similar.

Edited March 7, 2014 by ~Anne~

[Salukifan]

Not every accident that causes injury is someone's fault and therefore not every accident gets a payout.

When you are talking about negligence, you are talking about an area of law with significant elements that have to be satisfied to establish someone is negligent.

What duty of care is owed by a dog owner using a designated offlead area to other users?

What is the standard of care that is required?

Has a breach of the duty of care caused the accident?

Was the accident reasonably foreseeable?

Has the person harmed also been negligent.

The wikipedia article is a good sumation of the law but on occasion it comes down to the fact that shit sometimes does simply happen.

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

In my opinion the injured party should accept that there are offleash dogs in an offleash area and that involves a small risk of injury if you choose to enter said area. I do not believe the dog owners should have to be responsible for her medical costs as by allowing their dogs to play in a designated off-leash area, I do not see this as the dogs out of control. I see it as an accident and neither party was to blame for that accident.

[Danois]

Not every accident that causes injury is someone's fault and therefore not every accident gets a payout.

When you are talking about negligence, you are talking about an area of law with significant elements that have to be satisfied to establish someone is negligent.

What duty of care is owed by a dog owner using a designated offlead area to other users?

What is the standard of care that is required?

Has a breach of the duty of care caused the accident?

Was the accident reasonably foreseeable?

Has the person harmed also been negligent.

The wikipedia article is a good sumation of the law but on occasion it comes down to the fact that shit sometimes does simply happen.

Thanks for setting it out - I was too short on time yesterday hence the wiki link!

[Danois]

Waivers are often drummed up by legal houses to drum up business, and can easily be stepped on when disputing in court. Basically not wort the paper they are printed on.

Sorry but this is utter bollocks and needs to be corrected. Waivers can actually be legally valid and enforceable in court and this will be for the court to determine based on all the facts presented to it.

And law firms certainly don't use them to drum up business.

[benshiva]

There are deaf people in the world - so the headphones by themselves are not a contributing factor.

I

This. This was the first thing I thought of when people were citing the headphones as an issue.

[tdierikx]

If you DO have all of your senses intact, then why effectively shut one off when in a public access area?

Seriously, people glued to their music, or texting, or facebooking while meandering all over the place is one of my pet hates...

T.

[sandgrubber]

What does 'in control' mean?

Say the engineer can't stop a train before it hits a car parked in a railroad crossing. Is the train 'out of control'?

Are any dogs doing zoomies fully under control?

Should it be illegal to allow your dog to do zoomies in public?

Though my guess is a court of law could go either way on this one, should it go to court, I'd hope a judge would not find the dog owners negligent.

A much better outcome would be 'use at your own risk' postings at dog parks.

Finding the Rotti owner alone negligent -- because the Lab owner can't be found -- would seem a miscarriage of justice. It was, in effect, a conspiracy of two dogs that caused the accident.

[dididog]

I would assume deaf people are are lot more aware of their surroundings though and pay attention to what is happening, look around a lot more especially in open spaces.

This is not in response to who is at fault but the problem I have with this lady wearing headphones (and I assume listening to music) is that she was walking her dog in an area around other unknown dogs, how would she know if another dog was approaching her? People who go to dog parks and expect everyone else to follow the rules and not let their dogs run up to others are bound to run into trouble especially if they are then preventing their ability to foresee these dangers. Once and only once have I walked my puppy with headphones in listening to music and it was extremely disconcerting and I stopped after 1 song. I couldn't hear cars, people about to walk around corners, possible children near by, trams or buses in the distance or the presence of other dogs. If a tram or bus was coming up from behind and I could hear it I would know to hold the leash a bit tighter in case my puppy spooked and tried to bolt away from it (this was during a fear period). With headphones on if my puppy had gotten spooked I wouldn't be expecting it and maybe drop the leash/get pulled over. Our eyes can only be looking at so much, our ears are there to help us sense what we can't see and I think anybody who has walked a dog before knows you need eyes in the back of your head sometimes to notice every potential danger before it reaches you.

[Mystiqview]

Waivers are often drummed up by legal houses to drum up business, and can easily be stepped on when disputing in court. Basically not wort the paper they are printed on.

Sorry but this is utter bollocks and needs to be corrected. Waivers can actually be legally valid and enforceable in court and this will be for the court to determine based on all the facts presented to it.

And law firms certainly don't use them to drum up business.

Sorry, that is a direct quote from a leading law firm in a letter I have here. Cannot correct what I have in black and white. It was a response we were given as we as a club were asking about waivers. Regardless of whether you think it is correct or not, it's food for thought.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Mystiqview

[Guest Wildthing]

I would love Geoffrey Robertson QC to do one of his Hyperthetical programmes on this one. Perhaps some of the people posting could be part of the panel.

[Danois]

Waivers are often drummed up by legal houses to drum up business, and can easily be stepped on when disputing in court. Basically not wort the paper they are printed on.

Sorry but this is utter bollocks and needs to be corrected. Waivers can actually be legally valid and enforceable in court and this will be for the court to determine based on all the facts presented to it.

And law firms certainly don't use them to drum up business.

Sorry, that is a direct quote from a leading law firm in a letter I have here. Cannot correct what I have in black and white. It was a response we were given as we as a club were asking about waivers. Regardless of whether you think it is correct or not, it's food for thought.

It is laughable as the Civil Liability Act for example expressly allows for waivers in relation to recreational activities and the Court has upheld these many a time.

Personally I do not think it is food for thought - I think it is advice specific to your circumstances only and not general advice to be taken verbatim and applied to any situation other than your own.

And without knowing all the circumstances and the context of the advice - I also question an interpretation that says "dogs must be on lead" as an admission of anything. It is merely an instruction which aligns to the Companion Animals Act and orderly management of the event.

But again - it is advice specific to your facts and circumstances.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

It is possible to see (if you're not blind or exercising your dog off lead in the dark) if zoomies are likely to prang something.

If both owners were happy with their dogs doing zoomies together and one dog got injured (this happens too), I would say the "it was just an accident" would be a fair call.

But in this case - someone else got injured - who had a reasonable expectation of being able to walk in the park without being pranged by other people or their dogs. If a tree branch fell on her she'd probably sue the council.

I equate the zoomie prang into a stranger - as being a bit like if you left your kids in the car and they let the handbrake off and it rolled down the hill and ran over someone or pranged another car. Do you think you would not be expected to pay because it was "just an accident" and there are cars on the road and sometimes they prang into things?

[Steph M]

That's a little different in my mind. An off lead park is a place designated for dogs to play. One would expect to see and find dogs playing in a park.

A parked car is no place to leave kids, any reasonable person would expect the kids not to be left unsupervised in the car.