A cyclist who suffered brain injuries when a dog chasing a ball ran in front of him has won a court case against the animal’s owner.
David Crane, aged 70, was thrown over the handlebars of his bike as he tried to avoid the cocker spaniel named Felix on Acton Green Common in West London in March 2016, reports Mail Online.
> Cyclist injured in crash with dog chasing ball sues owner for £50,000
He could now receive as much as £50,000 in compensation from the dog’s owner, Carina Read, following the ruling at the Central London County Court, despite the defendant claiming that it was a “freak occurrence.”
The publishing executive had sued Ms Read for negligence as well as under the Animals Act 1971.
Judge Patrick Andrews refuted Ms Read’s defence that since her dog was not “dangerous,” it was not subject to the provisions of the act, and said that she should have restrained it.
The act provides, among other things, that where an animal that does not belong to a dangerous species causes damage or injury, its keeper may be held liable for injury or damage.
“After considering all the facts and evidence, I find that on the balance of probabilities, in failing to call back Felix, which she clearly had time to do, Ms Reid exposed Mr Crane to risk of injury,” the judge said.
Mr Crane, who was riding to work when the crash happened, had said in evidence: “The first time I was aware of the dog was when it was right in front of me.”
He sustained what his lawyer told the court was a “not insignificant brain injury,” which has affected his concentration, hearing and memory, as well as his senses of taste and smell.
Ms Read’s barrister, Nigel Lewers, had insisted that his client believed the path was clear when she threw the ball for Felix, and that it had bounced off his head.
“At that point, she became aware of Mr Crane cycling at speed with his head down,” although the plaintiff insisted that he was riding at no more than 5mph.
“She tried to warn him, but Felix chased the ball across the path and was struck by the front wheel of the bicycle,” Mr Lewers continued.
“She was doing what she and no doubt many others had done in the same or similar areas of the common – throwing a ball for her dog down an open strip of grass and not in the direction of the path.”
But Judge Andrews said that Ms Read should have restrained her dog, adding, that Mr Crane “had no time to take any evasive action when Felix ran across his path.”
Damages will be set at a future hearing.
72 thoughts on “Cyclist left with brain injuries when dog ran into his path wins court case”
Maybe all those inconsiderate
Maybe all those inconsiderate dog owners will now start following the HC and keeping their dogs on leads on shared use paths. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to take fairly drastic action to avoid a dog, including one which chased after me, overtook, and stopped right in front of me; I made the owner very aware of his obligations.
I imagine it will happen
I imagine it will happen about the same time inconsiderate cyclists stop riding on pavements and jumping red lights.
On the basis of what’s been reported here I find the whole case rather dubious and a case of ambulance chasing at its finest. I’d love to know what evidence there is for the 5mph and brain injury claim.
This sort of tripe shouldn’t be entertained as it just leads to a compensation culture.
Just bear in mind that any compo is probably coming off of her house insurance and therefore her premiums and anyone elses with the same company. The only winners will be the lawyers.
That’s coming from a cyclist and a dog owner whose also been knocked off by a dog.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
On the basis of what’s reported here I find your whole case rather dubious
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Enough evidence to convince the Judge; which I think you’ll find is all that matters.
Since it’s a civil case the
Since it’s a civil case the judge decides on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. We’ll see what he thinks about the injuries when he awards damages…
My point about this being another dubious victory for compensation culture stands..
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Oooer missus…
Naaa. I tried to get the
Naaa. I tried to get the missus involved but she wasn’t having any of it!
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I’m curious why you felt the need to point this out. Loads of people are cunts. Some of these ride bicycles, some of these drive cars, some play golf and I’d bet that the occasional bell-end has even made it into space.
So I agree with the rest of the post, but I find it somewhat odd when one has to point out that they are themself an etc etc as if not being an etc etc would invalidate their point.
Not trying to be arsy, just an observation.
Yes, the brain injury. Any
Yes, the brain injury. Any evidence it was not pre-existing? Given that he could not retrieve the situation – at 5mph.
Sriracha wrote:
A little callous?
Captain Badger wrote:
Well, ok, a little. I just find it hard to swallow – according to him he is cycling very cautiously at no more than 5mph, yet is unable to handle a minor occurrence, ends up brain injured. What was it, a cocker spaniel, stopped the bike dead and he went over the bars? One expects a modicum of proficiency on a bicycle. Maybe it happened like he said.
Edit Actually it does not say the dog stopped the bike dead. It says he “was thrown over the handlebars of his bike as he tried to avoid the cocker spaniel”. Sounds like he jammed the front brake on.
At the age of 70 his
At the age of 70 his reactions aren’t going to be great.
Never toppled over when unfailing to clip I take it ?
btw MiL has broken wrist, hip ankle from tripping over at 0-1 mph
On a topic from earlier in the year, one doctor reported on the new knee trauma clinic where over 50% of knee problems were from falling over due to own dog/ other dog / dog lead issues.
That is a very condescending
That is a very condescending attitude to have there. From that comment I’m inferring you mean “He must be brain damaged as he couldn’t stay upright on a bike where the front wheel stops dead.”
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
…at walking pace.
There ftfy.
You’re a fast walker then as
You’re a fast walker then as most people are 3-4mph.
I was only at walking pace when I hit a kerb and almost went over the bars only saving myself barely and giving my thigh a right whack off the drop end. I had gone to bunny hop my front wheel up it but as I was so slow it dropped back off it and the bike stopped dead but my bodies momentum still took me forward as it was unexpected. My mrs almost wet herself laughing and a passing motorist asked me if I was alright. It was embarrasing. Now I’m not 18 stone but I’m alot nearer to that weight then I am Chris Froome’s so I can see how it can happen.
So thanks for diagnosing I must be brain injured. I will ring my Docs up first thing in the morning.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Where are you getting “the front wheel stops dead” from?
Secret_squirrel wrote:
The 5mph I couldn’t say, maybe he had stava. However the brain injury and the long term effects would be evidenced by medical records accessible by both sides and IF there was any doubt on those, the defence would have raised that as a concern. So I guess it wasn’t as they only raised the “he shouldn’t have been there defence” which either is wrong or the Judge decided was not a factor (and Ealing Byelaws do not mention Acton Green Common but Acton Park), and “the dog was stunned by the ball whacking off his head”, (how hard did she throw the ball at it?)
As for “compensation culture” and “ambulance chasing comments”; shouldn’t someone who has long term injuries which has affected their quality of life get monetary compensation if it is adjudged someone else caused the injury? We are not talking about a small scar on the lip here.
And as for the compo coming off her insurance. That is the whole point of insurance and any claim made comes from premiums? Would you not claim for your stolen or crashed car because it comes off your premiums and anyone elses with the same company?
We will know more anyway on the awards hearing for full liability or not but the judge seems to be only looking one way at the moment.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I’d say the problem is with insisting on finding someone who can be adjudged to have caused the injury. It would make much more sense to me if there was a common ‘accidental injuries fund’ that could be claimed from if you’ve suffered injuries through no fault of your own, without having to pursue an individual – similar to criminal injuries compensation. It would then be open to, but not required by, the agency administrating the fund to pursue others if they felt they had contributed by negligence, etc., but you’d get the compensation based on the impact of the event, not on the mean of someone you can find to blame it on, or whether you can find someone to blame it on at all.
There is nothing accidental
There is nothing accidental about choosing not to control your dog on a lead. You are responsible for your dog’s actions and the consequences thereof. Having it on a lead increases your ability to perform that responsibility. She chose not to have it in a lead and must accept the consequences. It may have been a “freak” accident in her view, but it’s only freak if you ignore the fact she chose not to have the dog under her control in the first place.
So no-one should ever
So no-one should ever exercise a dog off the lead for fear of something unforeseen happening, leading to them getting sued? Exercising a dog in a park seems to me to be a reasonable thing to do, that shouldn’t carry with it a risk of financial harm because something unexpected happens while you’re doing it.
Unfortunately we’ve got to a place where whenever something goes wrong, ‘Someone Must Be To Blame’. We can no longer accept that the world is an imperfect place where sometimes bad things happen, despite everybody involved acting reasonably, and not being deserving of blame.
What a bizarre view.
What a bizarre view.
How exactly would you decide what level of harm to others is reasonable?
I would suggest that it is never reasonable to harm another person without their consent.
If everybody in society was held responsible for the harm they personally caused then we’d have a far more pleasant society to live in.
I’d also argue that if you’re throwing a ball 30 feet through the air next to a footpath then the ball ending up on the footpath is hardly a freak occurrence. It’s entirely predictable.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s not about the level of harm (at least not in isolation). It’s about what is a reasonably foreseeable outcome.
In this case, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect someone to foresee that throwing a ball for their dog, in a different direction, could lead to significant harm to someone cycling past in a manner appropriate to their surroundings (i.e. at a speed, and with the right level of care and attention, to allow for the likelihood of there being children and animals playing, etc.).
On the other hand, it would be reasonable to expect someone to foresee that throwing the ball, carelessly or recklessly, across a path used for cycling, without first checking that it was clear, would be likely to lead to harm, and so when it does they should bear some blame for that harm.
Following your argument.
Following your argument.
Throwing a ball across a path is negligent but throwing a ball near a path with sufficient velocity that it could bounce on to the path is not negligent?
I’ll concede that they represent differing degrees of negligence but both actions could predictably lead to harm given the right circumstances.
Unless the park in question is incredibly narrow I would imagine there are many safe areas to throw the ball away from the path in question.
By choosing not to throw the ball in a safe area the dog owner failed in her legal duty of care towards other park users.
Throwing a ball near a path
Throwing a ball near a path with sufficient velocity that it could reasonably be expected that it might bounce on to the path in such a way that would be liable to cause harm would be negligent.
It’s not a question of whether it could predictably lead to harm given the right circumstances, but whether those circumstances were themselves reasonably predictable.
So it boils down to whether you think it’s reasonable for someone to predict that the ball might ricochet, and that in doing so it would not only send the dog across the path, but do so in such a way that would be likely to cause harm to someone cycling. I’m not convinced that it is.
I’m guessing you haven’t
I’m guessing you haven’t spent much time throwing balls to dogs.
Anyone who has done is well aware of how far the ball can end up from where you threw it.
This wasn’t a freak occurrence, it was an entirely predictable outcome.
If you were asked to draw up a list of potential risks from exercising a dog in a park near to a shared use path I expect that ‘dog colliding with person on path’ would be pretty near the top.
The owner chose to take that risk and is liable for the outcome.
Again, my point is that it
Again, my point is that it shouldn’t be about whether it could be reasonably expected that the ball might deviate from where it was thrown, but about whether it was likely to do so in such a way as it was likely to cause harm. I would say not – in the vast majority of cases, someone cycling at a reasonable speed for the surroundings, and paying due attention to what was going on, would have been able to avoid a collision without problems.
You’ve conceded that throwing
You’ve conceded that throwing a ball across path is dangerous.
If that is true then throwing a ball in a location where there is an x% chance of the ball crossing the path is also dangerous as the potential outcomes are identical.
The dog owner chose to take that risk and somebody came to harm as a result of that choice.
They are therefore responsible for the consequences of their choice.
The harm caused was undoubtedly greater because of the age of the victim and his relative cycling proficiency but that wouldn’t be a defence in other circumstances.
If I punched a 70 year old in the face it would likely cause more harm than if I punched Tyson Fury, that’s not a basis to dismiss my culpability.
The judge got it wrong then?
The judge got it wrong then? Or dogs behave in random ways and it is foreseeable that in certain interactions the dog will cause harm due to it’s speed and random movement when in proximity to people?
Hence why dogs should be on a lead in many public situations.
mdavidford wrote:
Not unless they’re prepared to accept the (small) risk or are adequately insured.
When I go out on the bike there’s a small risk I could accidentally cause harm to someone else and end up getting sued. So I’ve got 3rd party insurance for that.
That just sounds like another
That just sounds like another layer of bureaucracy. The CIC and MIB funds are generally a backup when there is no insurance to make a claim against.
Although what you would do in a personal injury case like this if the defendent had no insurance or any personal wealth I’m not sure. There’s no equivalent fund for personal injury – maybe life insurance policies give you some cover for personal injury? Maybe I ought to think about a personal injury insurance policy??!
There would be some
There would be some bureaucracy, but it’s not extra, it’s replacement. It would negate the need for people to make claims on private personal injury or life insurance. And where a ‘no blame’ decision was taken it would remove the need for legal actions and court cases, which are a form of bureaucracy in themselves.
But more importantly, it would be fairer, because it wouldn’t depend on any party’s means, and whether they were able to provide themselves with insurance or, in the case where they were negligent, etc., to make an adequate payout.
That’s the NZ system.
That’s the NZ system.
Absolutely right that these
Absolutely right that these callous dog owners are made accountable for their negligence in their inability to keep their dogs under control.
Well done for not letting this dangerous dog owner off scot free. There are too many of them that have allowed their dogs to roam free and foul public or private areas without cleaning up and causing a health hazzard, particularly to children.
There were critics about this legal claim and now have to chew their own words, and the vulnerable victim has been vindicated.
Cyclists are always, unfairly, targeted by nasty and cowardice anti-cylist fanatics, who NEVER seem to uttrer a word against dangerous motorists, despite killing or injuring innocents in the 10000s, including children, and countless more harmed through toxic exhaust fumes and DIRTY DIESEL – is this them (anti-cylists) approving harmful motorists?
Projectcyclingfitness wrote:
Or just disagree with the judge’s decision. Judges are not infallible.
Most of the criticisms
Most of the criticisms centred on interpretation of the law.
The judge, who we have to assume is a legal expert, has sided with the interpretation that the dog owner is responsible for harm caused by their dog regardless of intention.
Those who disagree can, of course, continue to do so but their arguments carry far less weight given that expert opinion on the matter differs from their own.
(“Or just disagree with the
(“Or just disagree with the judge’s decision. Judges are not infallible”)
Do you disagree with the judge’s decision?
If so, why?
Good.
Good.
Hopefully a legal precedent will be set.
Dog owners cause a huge amount of harm in our society, being held responsible for some of that harm is a step in the right direction.
Oh, well.
Oh, well.
Dogs don’t litter. It’s their owners who don’t scoop their poop. Dogs don’t go to KFC and leave a bunch of half-empty packages right next to it. Dogs don’t get drunk and behave antisocially. Dogs don’t gather during lockdown just to “listen to the music” or whatever execuse is.
In 99% of cases it’s people being absolutely not responsible for their own behaviour who are to blame for dogs, cyclists, car drivers mistakes.
And it’s the owner who will
And it’s the owner who will have to pay the compensation, not the dog…
The owner’s insurance, not
The owner’s insurance, not the owner.
Rich_cb wrote:
What legal precedent, exactly, do you hope will be set from this civil case? Dog owners have always been held responsible for damge caused by their pets – that’s nothing new. Do you want this case to spur counclils to impose leash laws on every park with a footpath? Or a banning of the game of fetch? Becasue that’s the only thing that would have prevented this accident.
I find the claim that a cyclist rding at 5mph would have “no time” to see a cocker spaniel bounding in from their periphery. But ultimately, the judge had access to a lot more evidence, and knows far more about correctly applying the law than anyone on a cycling website. It will be interesting to see what the final judgement is in order to gauge how much responsibility he attributes to the dog owner.
“Becasue that’s the only
“Becasue that’s the only thing that would have prevented this accident.” Not really the only thing boo.
The legal precedent that the
The legal precedent that the dangerous dogs act applies to all dogs that cause harm.
The defence argued that it did not apply in this case.
Now that a judge has found that it does, in fact, apply to cases like this it should make legal proceeding against negligent dog owners far more straightforward.
There are safe places to play fetch and places where such a game could predictably lead to harm.
The path in question was firmly in the latter camp.
Quote:
You mean ‘rejected’ – it’s not the judge’s job to ‘refute’ anything.
mdavidford wrote:
You mean ‘rejected’ – it’s not the judge’s job to ‘refute’ anything.
Thank you, I was going to post the same. Many people don’t understand the difference between refute and reject.
I personally would expect to
I personally would expect to see dogs in a park and be wary. Such a low speed affair and the fact its London- west London. Sense of entitlement, sue of the wind changes folk down there.
Ambulance chaser with symtoms of loss of concentration, sense of smell etc. All of which cant be proved conclusively, some of which could be put down to age.
I personally would expect to
I personally would expect to see bikes in a park and would ensure my dog was under control.
The cyclist was doing nothing illegal and was injured because somebody else failed in their legal duty of care towards him.
Consider a similar situation on the road.
Would you blame the cyclist if he was hit by a car which was out of control?
How about if a skilled cyclist could have avoided the collision?
Mr Crane’s technical cycling
Mr Crane’s technical cycling ability, level of fitness, body mass, speed, misfortune in the way he fell or his choice of protective clothing that day are really rather irrelevant. All he had to show is that he came off the bicycle as a result of colliding with the dog which had run into his path, that he was not acting in a completely negligent manner and that the injuries he is claiming for are genuine and resulted from that incident.
Fundamentally (and having been on the wrong end of “he’s just being friendly” dogs some of whom wag their tails and some who bare their teeth, growl and bite to demonstrate their friendliness) I am more than happy that this case hilights the responsibility of dog owners to control their animals at all times in public spaces.
Mungecrundle wrote:
That’s a very good and level headed assessment of the case. I can almost guarantee the Daily Mail headline won’t be as kind to Mr Crane, and will likely be attacking him for something… “Lycra LOUT MAMIL cyclist sues dog walker for £50k and WINS!” is my bet.
Dogs should be on a lead near
Dogs should be on a lead near a footpath, if it’s a massive bit of land fine, keep the dog (by where you throw the ball) well away from other people, other dogs and paths. Very few dogs I have encountered are well trained enough to stay or be recalled and even for the trained ones the owners understood I didn’t know the dog was trained and held the collar regardless, a big thanks to them.
A dog on a lead can be more
A dog on a lead can be more dangerous than a dog off the lead, due to owners thinking ‘it’s on the lead so it’s under control’, only for the dog to bolt to the side createing a path wide obsticle thanks to owner on once side, dog on other with lovely tight cord in between.
When driving my car or riding my motorcycle, I assume there are likely to be cyclists or pedestrians near or on the road, particularly in built up areas, and drive/ride with the appropriate caution.
When riding my bike in built up areas, but especially on any path that is shared, I assume that there could be dogs (or children), and ride with the appropriate caution.
joules1975 wrote:
I think the highway code mentions something about this….
56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
It’s a shame that the
It’s a shame that the comments on here regarding dogs and dog owners are no different to the Daily Mail comments section on a story about cyclists.
Care to highlight a
Care to highlight a particular example that you think is unfair? I’ve yet to see a generalization of all dog owners as being irresponsible and lawbreaking for example, nor suggestions that they are subhuman, consume a load of money for infrastructure that’s better spent on cars, need to pay insurance and tax before they’re allowed to walk their dogs, etc…
Fair comment is made about the behaviour of a subset of dog owners. I ride a lot of shared use paths and there are plenty of people who either have fast-moving or unpredictable dogs off a lead in violation of towpath rules about control (for example, a woman on a local towpath has a damn Border Collie that will charge you and attempt to herd you from substantial distance) or use the infernal extendable leads so that they’re on one side of the towpath and the dog is way in front on the other side, so you’re totally blocked until they recall the dog – _if_ they do, because some of them interpret “pedestrians have priority” as extending to their dogs. Such behaviour on a shared use path is irresponsible and selfish.
Dog owners have the potential to be just as entitled as some cyclists, car drivers, pedestrians etc.
Luca Patrono wrote:
this?
“Dog owners cause a huge amount of harm in our society, being held responsible for some of that harm is a step in the right direction.”
OldRidgeback – thanks for
OldRidgeback – thanks for taking up the cause. There were so many examples I really couldn’t be bothered….
That’s my quote.
That’s my quote.
Explain what’s wrong with it please?
Rich_cb wrote:
Substitute “dog owners” for “cyclists”….
So, by your infallible logic,
So, by your infallible logic, the following sentence is also problematic.
Murderers cause a huge amount of harm in our society.
Rich_cb wrote:
Come on mate, stay on topic; cyclists and/or dogs…
Come on mate, accept your
Come on mate, accept your point was stupid.
Look up the statistics for dog attacks and associated injuries then look again at my post that you took such issue with.
Rich_cb wrote:
False equivalence. All murderers are by definition dangerous criminals.
Cycilsts and dog owners not so much.
You made a blanket statement about dog owners. One that you you probably wouldn’t accept if someone substituted dog owner for cyclist.
Nope.
Nope.
If you change the subject of a sentence you change the meaning of the sentence.
You can’t claim a sentence is problematic because changing the subject makes it problematic. That’s idiotic.
Dog owners do cause a huge amount of harm in our society.
That is fairly undeniable.
Look up the statistics for dog attacks if you don’t believe me.
Our bicycles don’t have minds
Our bicycles don’t have minds of their own, and we don’t let them run free.
Luca Patrono wrote:
Well I for one think it’s about time that dog owners were accountable. They don’t pay tax or contribute in any way. Only last night I was knocked over by a pack of them jumping a red light. Couldn’t see them cos they didn’t have hiviz or lights. They’re always holding up the traffic going to fast. Why don’t their dogs need a certificate of park worthiness? There they go taking up the whole park, chatting away 4, 5, sometimes more abreast, causing pollution and accidents.
That do? Only for balance of course
I have been seeing some very
I have been seeing some very funky light up dog collars this year.
ktache wrote:
I firmly believe that all funky light up dogs should be required to wear collars
Cyclist was riding too fast
Cyclist was riding too fast for the conditions. It could have been a child that ran in front of him.
Does the speed of a child
Does the speed of a child anywhere match the speed of a dog? That’s why dig owners need to be in control of their pets.
PRSboy wrote:
as I interpret the reports the dog came from behind him then across his path. perhaps by riding faster the incident wouldn’t have happened. Certainly a child would not have overtaken him even at a sensible cycling speed with a clear path ahead.
I think that Mr Crane had the
I think that Mr Crane had the better solicitor, but I’m a little conflicted.
The dog owner certainly has responsibility for thier dog, and owes Mr Crane compensation. yet I think that she amy have been poorly served by a solicitor that apparently relied on the dog not being subject to the Animals Act. Rather than Mr Crane bore some responsibility.
Some of Mr Cranes testimony doesn’r ring true, yet seems to have been accepted by the judge.
Acton Green common is a wide open space. Mr Crane said that he couldn’t have been traveling more than 5 mph. Even my lethargic 10 year old doesn’t cruse that slow. If you are not going uphill it acctually takes some effort to go that slow.
Riding at 5 mph in a wide open space, he completely failed to see a dog running after a ball, untill it was right in front of him, and he had no time to stop! At no more than 5 mph! His eye sight wasn’t mentioned so I presume bad vision isn’t a factor.
Ms Read’s testimony of Mr Crane cycling at speed with his head down seem to be a better fit for the circumstances of not seeing the dog approaching in a wide open space, until it was too late, and not beig able to stop in time once it was seen.
We will have to wait for the
We will have to wait for the compensation to see. Perhaps the judge will reduce it with a contributory part.
Dogs are very quick and change direction quickly, so it really depends where the dog came from and how much time there was to react. 70 year olds also have slower reactions.