A man who came off his bike when a dog ran in front of him as it chased a ball is suing the animal’s owner for £50,000.
Metro reports that David Crane, who was on his way to work as a publishing executive, crashed on Acton Green Common in West London as he tried to avoid the cocker spaniel, named Felix.
Mr Crane, aged 70, went over his bike’s handlebars and hit his head, resulting in a seizure, concussion and a brain haemorrhage in the incident, which happened in March 2016.
Central London County Court heard that his injuries resulting in him suffering from loss of memory and concentration as well as headaches, and also affected his sense of taste and smell. His left ear was also damaged as a result of the crash.
The court was told that Mr Crane, who lives in Chiswick, said he was travelling at 5mph because “I was very overweight and cycling fast was not something I did. I was 18 stone at the time.”
He is suing the dog’s owner, 48-year-old investment banker Carina Read, claiming that she negligently failed to keep the dog under control and that she should have been aware that the dog chasing a ball “with no regard for his surroundings,” might cause a cyclist serious harm.
In her defence, Ms Read said the cyclist should not have been riding in the park due to local by-laws forbidding it and that his crash resulted from a “freak occurrence” and that she had her dog under control.
Her lawyer, Nigel Lewes, said that Ms Read had been using a “thrower” to throw balls for Felix to chase, and that she had been standing around 33 feet from the path Mr Crane was cycling on.
He said: “She threw the ball parallel to the path. Felix went after the ball and it bounced off his head, deflecting towards the path.
“At that point she became aware of Mr Crane cycling at speed with his head down. She tried to warn him but Felix chased the ball and was struck by the front wheel of his bicycle.”
Mr Crane is also suing the dog-owner under the Animals Act 1972 but Mr Lewers insists that legislation only relates to cases involving a dangerous animal, saying: “Felix was not dangerous. He was running to catch a ball.”
The case was has been adjourned.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
132 thoughts on “Cyclist injured in crash with dog chasing ball sues owner for £50,000”
Going over the bars at 5 mph
Going over the bars at 5 mph is pretty good going.
Not being able to stop from
Not being able to stop from 5mph to avoid the dog, not so much.
Exactly. Whenever sharing a
Exactly. Whenever sharing a path with walkers and/or dogs you should either make a wide detour around them or slow to such a speed that you can stop more or less instantly.
Both dogs and walkers can be highly unpredictable especially when being approached from behind and often wearing headphones or staring into a phone (not the dogs obviously!).
She wasn’t on the path. Her
She wasn’t on the path. Her argument is she was really far from the path and not throwing the ball at it or near it, the dog knocked it onto the path.
He also states (which she obviously disputes) that he was doing 5mph which is a slightly fast walking pace which to me would be a fine speed if she was on the path and he would have seen the dog as well if she was. But if she was off on the grass area he probably wouldn’t have paid much attention as there was a distance between them (if he saw her of course).
My personaly opinion is
My personaly opinion is probably 10 mph because it is actually harder to cycle at walking speed then running speed dependent on bike type /wheel size. However as he wouldn’t have had a speedo…..
Quote:
Where do I get me one of these balls that chases dogs?
mdavidford wrote:
Where do I get me one of these balls that chases dogs?
It wasn’t a dog-chasing ball.
Disappointing. I was looking
Disappointing. I was looking forward to all the fun I could have terrorising the local mutts as they go walkies past our house.
Doing 5mph and going over the
Doing 5mph and going over the bars while being 18 stone? I can understand not stopping in time for the dog, being 18 stone, that’ll take a long time to stop, but I doubt he went over the bars, then again, his memory isn’t what it once was because of the crash….
Also, if the by-law holds up that he shouldn’t have been cycling there in the first place, that’ll be the end of the case.
Even if it doesn’t, it’s hard
Even if it doesn’t, it’s hard to see how the case has much merit. I mean, it’s a park – you’ve got to expect there to be dogs, kids, etc. running about and be prepared to look out for and avoid them. What if it had been a squirrel rather than a dog – would he be trying to sue that?
Gkam84 wrote:
And the dog is a spaniel, no less. The physics don’t seem to add up. Especially as he should have had enough situational awareness to apply some braking before the collision. (If he didn’t then he he should be sued for injuring the dog, as it seems negligent to be riding on that footpath through a small park without being prepared to stop for kids, etc.)
No bylaws for Ealing Parks
No bylaws for Ealing Parks against or for cycling but as they have specific signs stating no bikes in the playground area I assume they are ok with them in the park in general, especially as they have a bike area in the park. They do have specific bylaws for dogs under control although not specifically stating they should all be on leads.
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201132/parks_and_open_spaces/643/park_rules_and_bylaws/2
https://www.ealing.gov.uk
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/download/713/parks_and_open_spaces_bylaws
From this source:
(1)(ii) No person shall, without reasonable excuse, ride a cycle, except in any part of the ground where there is a right of way for cycles, or along such routes as may by fixed by the Council and indicated by signs placed in conspicious positions on the ground.
If it wasn’t a right of way, he’s done. If it was, there’s a case to be made (depending on the geography of the park) that such play too close to such a path was dangerous for both dogs and riders.
Edit: Looking at the area in question, it’s pretty small. This’ll almost certainly be thrown out.
Doesn’t cover Acton Green
Doesn’t cover Acton Green Common though it seems.
Ah, you’re right. I saw Acton
Ah, you’re right. I saw Acton Park in the reference list and assumed Acton Green Common to be a subsection of it.
I’m not 70 but I am 18st (at
I’m not 70 but I am 18st (at least) and I can certainly tap out a decent sprint if I feel like it. Unless Rover appeared suddenly from the bushes and dogs were required to be kept on leads and under control he hasn’t got a leg to stand on here. Just wait until the Heil hears about it.
If it was a shared path he
If it was a shared path he was on then the dog owner is in breach of highway code rule 56. I would think he has a good case. Perhaps it’s time for all pedestrians to be insured or ensure dog’s have hi vis jackets.
Dogs under control seems to
Dogs under control seems to be the main rule for that area judging by the signs near the entrances.
Don’t forget registered and
Don’t forget registered and made to take a test….
You used to need a licence –
You used to need a licence – 37p I think.
Was it cheaper if your dog
Was it cheaper if your dog was black and white?
Captain Badger wrote:
When I was a kid, all dogs were black and white – if you were lucky enough to have one – and there were only about 3 breeds. Then a friend got a colour dog and we would all go round to their parents house and just stare at it.
Kids these days…
And weirdly the waste
And weirdly the waste products left on the paths was either black or white as well.
When I was a child I was
When I was a child I was convinced that the white ones were laid by poodles.
*Edit* Not a joke, I can’t tell you why I jumped to that conclusion.
They wouldn’t believe it if
They wouldn’t believe it if you told them….
Course we ‘ad it tuff…….
IanMK wrote:
And he was in breach of code 66 – as if he couldn’t slow a bike at 5mph enough to keep 18 stones from going over the handlebars, he obviously wasn’t being considerate of other users of Acton Greeen Commons’ paths.
Was the dog wearing hiviz? If
Was the dog wearing hiviz? If not, why not?
My whippet has a bright red
My whippet has a bright red coat. If you can’t see that, then your eyesight isn’t good enough for you to cycle on your own. In winter when I do my usual morning run with my running buddy, I stick a small bicycle light on my whippet’s collar. My running buddy has a flashing collar for her whippet.
I don’t see the point in
I don’t see the point in commentating until the case is over and most of the relevant facts have been made known.
I predict the only winners
I predict the only winners from this will be the lawyers.
I wonder if they are going after the ladies house insurance? 50k seems low for the nature of the injuries tbh.
Im finding the whole case a bit dubious.
Especially as she was earning
Especially as she was earning 350k with 150k bonuses back in the early 2000’s. But maybe he isn’t actually “greedy”, just wanting stuff to help with the long term effects of the injuries.
I would imagine that if a dog
I would imagine that if a dog causes somebody to injure themself then the owner can be considered liable.
Throwing a ball near to a path is a pretty stupid thing for a dog owner to do.
IMO the owner is at least partially liable for the cyclists injuries.
If cycling had been allowed on the path then the dog owner should be held fully liable.
Again, if it’s a shared use
Again, if it’s a shared use path, then I believe the cyclist has to give way.
I’m not sure that’s
I’m not sure that’s applicable in this situation.
Surely you only have to give way to a person or animal established on the path?
You can’t be expected to give way to an animal unexpectedly entering the path at speed.
Rich_cb wrote:
33 feet away and separated by flowerbeds isn’t exactly “near”. Especially when the cyclist was apparently only going 5mph – which only requires a 1-foot braking distance (according to a few online calculators) – in the unliekly event the ball takes an unpredictable bounce.
The ball ended up on the path
The ball ended up on the path.
That’s near enough for me.
Had it been a child chasing
Had it been a child chasing the ball would that alter who was being sued?
If, as seems to be the case,
If, as seems to be the case, cycling is permitted, then the HC rules about dogs on shared paths might apply; they must be kept under control on a lead.
“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.”
Of course, since she wasn’t exercising her dog on the path, but the ball bounced there, this is a moot point: could she reasonably foresee that the ball could go on the path?
I suspect it would decide how
I suspect it would decide how close to the path she was walking when she threw it “parallel”.
The picture in article shows a thin stretch of grass next to the path, it isn’t on a hill really and looks quite flat. If the ball hit the dogs head and bounced across it, then It doesn’t sound far. Now spaniels, as a hunting dog are fast and excitable, (at least ours were) so he might have been one that chases and knocks the ball for the fun of it.
TBH, even before I took up cycling I have always thought those ball throwers are a bit dodgy. I understand it makes it easier to throw balls further for little effort and they can run further, but to me you are taking the dog out a comfortable control zone and you have a lot further to go to stop them and get them back (Fentonnn!).
Hmm, if it’s a shared use
Hmm, if it’s a shared use path then pedestrians, children and dogs have priority don’t they? It’d be different if it’d happened in the road.
I was once knocked off my motorbike by a dog that ran into the middle of a very busy A road. The dog owner scooped up his animal and departed, leaving me with a smashed motorbike and foot.
The animal survived at least, but my anger was with the owner.
There are highway code
There are highway code obligations on shared paths (a legal category that may or may not apply here, depending on whether the council has declared it an official shared path or not) for dogs to be kept under control, which translates as on a short lead. Priority may or may not come into it.
I’ve had a little read around
I’ve had a little read around and I don’t think the highway code would necessarily be the relevant legislation here.
There is a general legal requirement to keep your dog under control.
“It’s against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control anywhere, such as:
in a public place
in a private place, for example a neighbour’s house or garden
in the owner’s home
The law applies to all dogs.
Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
injures someone
makes someone worried that it might injure them”
https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public
It seems that this dog has injured someone and therefore can be considered out of control.
I suspect it’s a little
I suspect it’s a little outside the intent of the legislation, though, which is probably dealing with dogs that are dangerous in the sense of being actively aggressive, rather than just running around a bit.
If an out of control dog runs
If an out of control dog runs into you and injures you is that any different to an out of control dog biting you?
I’m far less likely to be seriously hurt by a small dog biting me than by it running into my front wheel.
Keeping a dog under control means just that.
If your dog is injuring people then you don’t have it under sufficient control.
From the article, isn’t that
From the article, isn’t that some the of Legalities he is claiming with her defence lawyer stating it is only dangerous dogs. The outcome will be interesting anyway to determine for future cases.
It is.
It is.
I’m hoping this case establishes the legal responsibilities of dog owners a bit more clearly.
Much like car ownership the harm caused by dog ownership is largely ignored.
This took place in a park or
This took place in a park or common? If people can’t let their dog have a bit of a run around and chase a ball in a park because someone cycling at 5mph can’t avoid an errant dog, I think the world will be a poorer place. If you cycle through a park you look out for stuff like this. It would be different had the dog run into the road and collided with the cyclist. If the guy can’t deal with what goes on in a park then get off and push – don’t expect everyone else to curtail their reasonable enjoyment to accommodate you.
That is a strangely entitled
That is a strangely entitled view.
You have a legal duty to prevent your dog causing harm to others.
If you can’t manage to do that then don’t own a dog.
But the dog didn’t harm
But the dog didn’t harm anybody. The cyclist just failed to take account of his surroundings and came off his bike through incompetence. That harmed him.
Obviously we don’ have a real
Obviously we don’ have a real sequence of events in this case that can be trusted. But lets imagine a scenario happens where someone cycled past the walker and dog. The walker then throws the ball further then usualwith the device and the dog runs from behind and in front of the cyclist and causes a similar accident with similar injuries? Is that the cyclists fault for not looking behind them all the time because he passed them safely already?
Or actually lets take the bike out of it. A dog chasing the ball knocked a 5 yo flying and that kid hit the ground hard with their head and had similar injuries? Did the dog not harm the child. Is it the parent of the child fault for not checking the surroundings.
I don’t blame the dog, after all it was doing what dogs do, but some responsibility has to go to owners and it might or might not be proven in this case whether she was at fault or not.
Except we don’t really know
Except we don’t really know what happened.
There is a duty to keep a dog under control. It has got this far because there is a dispute about whether the dog was not under control, the cyclist was at fault etc or the level of damages.
Not sure how you have enough evidence to blame the cyclist but as I said in my first post, there is insufficient evidence to make any real comment.
That is a rather spurious
That is a rather spurious claim.
Nobody is disputing that the dog ran in front of the bike.
That put the cyclist in danger requiring him to take evasive action.
That is the point at which liability occurs.
You have literally no proof for the rest of your post.
There are 3 things to prove.
There are 3 things to prove. Duty of care, resulting damage, duty of care broken.
The first two seem a given, so the dispute is about the extent to which the duty of care was broken (if at all) and the level of damages payable.
We will have to wait for the outcome.
I actually think the
I actually think the strangely entitled view is that just because there is an incident that compensation is somehow due.
The problem is perhaps not the legal position but the compensation culture that has grown up off the back of it. I would argue that if people were more aware that there no chance of “free” money from these kind of incidents then the actual problem would go away.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Very big assumption there. “Shit happens; deal with it” then ?
There is a reason why third party liability insurance exists.
I don’t think Rich has argued
I don’t think Rich has argued that compensation is due in this case but I might have missed this. I think the argument is are owners legally resposible for incidents caused by dogs that aren’t biting incidents? Now that might mean paying damages to cover out of pocket expenses or even charges if any can be applied. But it will be interesting to see the outcome when it occurs.
I understand you with Compo culture but in some cases it is needed. I hate when you see apparently frivolous claims like the the one last year who had a small scar on her face and won more then my Mrs got from Victim Compensation (free money woohoo) when she lost the use of a finger permanently when the tendons were sliced by a knife wielding robber. And remember the judge reduced the scar lady award to £4000 as he stated he didn’t believe it effected her beauty. She was claiming alot more then that initially.
I happen to take the exact
I happen to take the exact opposite view.
If every individual in society was required to pay for the harm that they personally caused we’d see far more considerate behaviour all round.
The difficulty with the current system is that it incentivises spurious claims.
The basic principle of paying for the harm your actions cause is sound.
They are equally to blame.
They are equally to blame. The dog wasn’t wearing hi-viz and the cyclist should have bunny hopped the dog like this curb dog
Sriracha wrote:
It’s not about curtailing a reasonable activity, but determining liability should the unexpected happen.
If a car crashes into a building because the brakes failed, you would expect the driver’s insurance to bear the liability, even though there was no negligence on the part of the driver.
Ahh, the gentle sound of the
Ahh, the gentle sound of the “he was only playing” argument.
The cyclist is going to need some pretty clear independent witness evidence e.g. as to his speed.
He’s on a loser if he shouldn’t have been cycling in the location – does anyone know?
If he was allowed to cycle
If he was allowed to cycle there and the path was clear (she was 11 metres off the path for example) then he could have been doing 12-15mph and that would have been ‘legal’ so the actual speed question is a bit of a red herring really. The head down not looking bit though….. witnesses for both parties would have been useful.
As for “was he allowed to cycle there”. No obvious bylaws we have found cover Acton Park Common but in four years, things may have changed.However there is also no “no cycling ” or “cycling allowed” signs on the entrance signs which state rules. But there is one stating no bikes allowed on the entrance to the play area further in the park. So I suspect we will see from the case.
Time for a bedtime story.
Time for a bedtime story.
In 2012 I went to a join a mate in Montreal to ride from Montreal to Miami. We spent 5 weeks doing 3095km with a bit of siteseeing in Gettysburg, Washington and visiting a friend on Hilton Head Island. We managed all that without falling off once despite spending many hours riding close behind one another and being chased by loose dogs running off front porches in the southern states.
After flying back to Montreal I had a few days left before flying home so we were able to go out on Montreal island for a ride and on the cycle route, in a park, a collie shot across the path towards its owner and took out my mates front wheel. He went over in a split second with me breaking hard behind him. I didn’t know whether to help him up or make sure the women dog owner didn’t do a runner. Another women dashed up to help him and I went over to the dog owner who ignored me and walked off. I asked my mate if I should go after her and he said there was nothing I could do. It seems that in Canada it is a case of tough luck. Here in Germany such incidents will be covered by the dog owner’s liability insurance.
We both had trouble believing that after all those miles one of us was taken out so easily a few minutes from home.
Like any activity undertaken
Like any activity undertaken in a public place with an outside chance of causing unintentional injury to another person or damage to their property, isn’t this exactly the sort of scenario where having adequate third party liability is rather a good idea? She probably has cover on her house insurance policy.
Exercising your dog off the lead is hardly the act of Beelzebub or involve unreasonable risk to others, but ultimately the owner has to be held responsible for any incidents that result. Presumably, and I would defer to anyone who actually knows about personal liability, you don’t have to have commited a crime before your insurance policy pays out to a third party, you can just be unlucky that circumstances bring about a freak accident. Mr Crane’s technical cycling ability, level of fitness, body mass, misfortune in the way he fell or his choice of protective clothing that day are really rather irrelevant. All he needs 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.
Exactly – the dog owner is
Exactly – the dog owner is responsible for harm caused by the actions of the dog.
If the dog were on a lead and darted into the path of a cyclist/jogger causing them to fall and be injured, then the owner would still be responsible even though they hadn’t done anything wrong.
C’mon HP, where are the
C’mon HP, where are the squirrel pics? Surely they are more of a danger in a park ?
hirsute wrote:
I’m considering the commercial side of starting up a new aero-wheel cover business, but I’m consulting with lawyers at the moment about possible dog attacks and whether the covers would count as enticement.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I think most pet insurance (usually taken out to cover vet bills) has 3rd party liability too.
You’ve summed it up well. It’s not as negligent as exercising a dog next to a motorway and it runs out causing a pile up. But more so than it running over and swiping a sausage roll from someones picnic in the park. Both of which you might reasonably expect the dog owner to be responsible for.
That reminds me of cycling
That reminds me of cycling though a park on a national route. I noticed a dog by some railings to my right and just off the shared path. The next thing I saw was this thin black lead across the path. The sun was so bright, I only spotted it at the last moment.
To my mind, the owner was negligent by allowing his dog on a long extendable lead across a marked, shared path. Had I been taken out by the dog, litigation would have been a reasonable option.
If it truly is a freak
If it truly is a freak accident, then sometimes insurance will not pay out. But it really has to be a totally unavoidable situation.
The defence in this case is arguing that the ball bounced erratically and it was a freak occurance. But in my (limited) experience of throwing balls, they do often bounce erratically.
I think they are actually
I think they are actually stating that after she threw it, instead of the dog catching it in his mouth, it hit him on the head and that changed directions into the cyclists path. Again, something out of her specific control maybe but again, owning spaniels in the past, it is not unknown for dogs to do that.
This is still the bit that I can’t envision from her account though.
‘She threw the ball parallel to the path,’ he said. ‘Felix went after the ball and it bounced off his head, deflecting towards the path.
11 metres from the path with the daffodils in the way and not thrown towards it and it still rolled onto the path after hitting the dogs head. How hard did she throw it?
But the case will be interesting either way.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
It could potentially give a green light to the anti-cycling faction to train up packs of kamikaze cyclist attack dogs. Who launch themselves under the wheels of riders when a ball is fired in the general vincinity of the target…
Also, one of the general park bylaws talks about not launching missiles. Is a ball launched from a thrower considered a missile?!
Years ago, I bought a ladder
Years ago, I bought a ladder propped it up against the car to get the boot open. There was then a gust of wind that blew the ladder over and dented a nearby car.
The insurance company refused liability on the basis of freak accident but changed their minds when a small claims court letter turned up !
hirsute wrote:
You hooligan!
Fascinating case, and
Fascinating case, and fascinating views here.
For me, I’d imagine a lot would hinge on whether the chap had a legal right to be riding on that path. If not, then it would seem unreasonable to expect the dog owner to have a duty of care for people breaking the rules.
However as her defense has seemingly not dwelled on this, I’d say that a right to cycle on that path is maybe up for discussion / debate.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
However, reacting to a few comments here, I wanted to highlight that actually, when cycling at slow speeds, it can be harder to adequately react to situations then when travelling at higher speeds. The reason being is that your closing speed is so low, you are effectively unable to influence events around you. You’re not happening on to a situation, rather a situation is happening to you. Taken to the extreme – no one is ever told its their job to avoid a moving bullet.
Also, as you get older your reactions do slow, so yeah, I can visualise a situation where this person could have experienced a violent accident from a slow speed. The point being that the seriousness of the injury does not, itself, challenge the claimed speed given by the cyclist.
Does the women’s account of the cyclists conduct actually suggest guilt on her part. She is saying she saw the cyclist, she saw that he was speeding and was not looking at the road ahead. Yet, she still chose to throw the ball in the vicinity of that cyclist despite being aware of the factors? To me that suggests a failure in her duty of care.
Finally, you can’t justify her actions, by saying that the balls trajectory was not as she intended or wanted. In a public place, she has a duty of care to think about what could happen, not just focus on what she wants / expects to happen. For instance, using a child analogy (as they are very popular on this thread), if she threw the ball around a bunch of toddlers, would anyone not hold her responsible if her dog knocked one of the kids over?
Something odd here.
Something odd here.
I am pretty sure this was 4 pages long earlier and one of my comments was the second on page 4 but now there are only 3 pages.
4 Pages long would mean over
4 Pages long would mean over 90 comments. I do not remember this being that high but I could be wrong.
Pretty sure booboo had made a
Pretty sure booboo had made a couple of comments on this, now missing…
Can’t find him at all in the
Can’t find him at all in the recent news items. Seems banned.
Good riddance, I say. Their
Good riddance, I say. Their comments didn’t add anything worthwhile.
I’m surprised as I didn’t see
I’m surprised as I didn’t see anything in his that would obviously breach rules. And others are still here so might not be general posting. Of course, as with shops, the owner has the right to refuse entry for anyone but always nice if the reason is obvious. .
Judging by replies in nmotd
Judging by replies in nmotd cyclist v learner driver on roundabout he made some dumb posts which he then described as ‘humour’. Perhaps that was it.
If there was one post, it
If there was one post, it might have been the first one posted on the Taxi one about subtitles needed. I think there must have been something rather then the generic apparent trolling as it is only him gone. Although others are relieved, I’m actualy saddened if just for his posts as he did actually post useful guidance in the forums when he wasn’t trying to hook people.
hirsute wrote:
TBH I wondered if their comments in the Big Yellow Taxi NMOTD had p!$$ed off a Scottish road.cc sysadmin…
I’m not at all surprised due
I’m not at all surprised due to the number of people that they were annoying. I guess that someone at road.cc decided that enough was enough and deleted the account.
I replied to him a couple
I replied to him a couple times early on saying for someone who keeps getting called a troll you seem determined to prove them right.
hirsute wrote:
Seconded. Boo’s comments in the Big Yellow Taxi NMOTD have disappeared too.
(Socrati’s comments are still there).
If he ends up gone, I’ll
If he ends up gone, I’ll start subscribing in an instant.
Hint, hint…
Seems that all BOOHOOs
Seems that all BOOHOOs comments have gone, along with any that were in that thread. A shame, as my particularly amusing anecdote about Dunkery Beacon near Porlock has gone too….
I presume It’s been struck off – I don’t think you can delete your own comments. Don’t know about the other one
I solve the annoyance of the
I solve the annoyance of the 2 resident nutters by not reading anything by them or referring to anything by them I am grateful for the warning that one of the nutters has possibly resurfaced with another name for me to shun.
wtjs wrote:
Maybe you should report me to the admins and ask them to check my IP address and sign-up date?
I’m totally baffled as to why the apparent racist (according to AlsoSomniloquism) “Boo” would have signed up with this sepcific user name (celebrating black liberation) months before today. But I usually only read tech stories, so I had no idea about the toxic atmosphere and mobbish behavior shown toward minorities and Yanks in the news comments sections.
(Eagerly awaiting your apology for the “nutter” insult and false ID ?!)
I believe I saw the were 90
I believe I saw there were 90 comments because I was surprised there were that many.
Just to be clear:
Just to be clear:
A 250-pound man hit a 15-pound cocker spaniel and went over the handlebars? Even though he had previously only been cycling as 5mph (a brisk walking speed), and so obviously would have been going much slower than that at the time of the collision, given the fact that he’s a responsible cyclist and woud have been aware of his surroundings as he rolls along a walking path in a small park, ready to brake for obstacles? (He claims he “braked hard”.)
And this woman is somehow negligent for not reasonably predicting that a ball thrown 33-feet away from the walking path might take a bounce off the head of said spaniel, and over a divinding row of flowers, causing the dog to bound in front of a bike – going no more than 2mph after “braking hard” – and would cause serious harm?
And some members of the cycling community think that his winning 50 grand (in a suit he filed 4 long years after the incident) will improve the perception the public has of us, or lead to structural changes that would make us safer?
Seriously?
Are you familiar with English
Are you familiar with English civil law and insurance claims?
Which PBU are you again ?
Hmm, Boo disappears, and
Hmm, Boo disappears, and within a few hours a poster comes in and their first five posts……
Anyway welcome
back booUhuru and hopefully will be here for a long time with your sharp insight into cycling matters.Anyway, with your succint second paragraph, how far away and what parameters count as an animal in control and out of control? Is a dog potentially 50 ft away (might have been more, might have been less but one of the sides of the triangle is 33 ft) and running away from you without responding to shouts under control? Maybe a different take. Would you class Fenton as an animal under the control of his owner? I think the definition the court have to make and she really needs to defend for if the path can be cycled on is that really in my opinion,
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Coincidence, I’m sure… 😉
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Oh, God… internet sleuths…
I have no idea who Boo is. But if “outting” me as someone I’m not is an indication of what level of rationality is used ’round these parts, I’m not surprise so many commentors thnk a small dog can send a large man over his handles bars while he’s cycling slower than a saunter.
My point isn’t about a dog being in or out of control. It’s about her level of liability. Negligence relies on her having a reasonable expectation of causing a harmful outcome by her actions. I believe iin the UK, they use the phrase “reasonably foreseeable”.
As to the dog: By your logic above, any dog that is in the act of chasing a ball you’ve thrown for it is “out of control.” Becasue, honestly, I doubt any owner could get a dog in the midst of a retrieve to stop by a voice command. So I guess we need to ban off-leash exercise?
Er… yeah. thanks for the warm welcome.
You seem to be doubting that
You seem to be doubting that a small dog could cause an accident – why is that? If it didn’t happen, then why would the woman state that it was a ‘freak occurrence’ rather than disputing what happened?
I’m questioning your rationality.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m disputing his insistance that he was “riding at no more than 5mph” before the incident. At that speed, and using a reasonable amount of situational awareness while biking on a walking path through a park (meaning plenty of braking time available), I doubt the stopping force would send that much much weight over the bars.
Part of her defence is that he was cycling much faster (as he was late to work, I believe), and had his head down, not acting with the dilligence a cyclist should be.
Which sounds more likely? Cycling under 5mph, fully aware of his surroundings and a collision that send him over after breaking. Or riding significantly faster and not paying attention – aka cycling recklessly?
His speed is disputed, but is
His speed is disputed, but is unlikely to make that much difference as a heavy man would have significant momentum even at slow speeds. Without an independent witness, it’s going to be one word against another.
I’m not sure of the relevance of ‘head down’ or not as the dog would presumably have made contact from the side – the owner isn’t claiming that he cycled into the dog which you would expect if the dog was in front of the cyclist. Similarly, not being aware of a small dog running from behind you is hardly not being diligent and I don’t see how you would describe that as cycling recklessly.
It almost seems that you’re trying to push some kind of agenda here.
She also called out to him to
She also called out to him to warn him, so cycling along keeping an eye in front as a walker and her dog are off to the side somewhere and far enough away that it shouldn’t be an issue when suddenly called to look in one direction and not potentially the one the animal is approaching from. It would be nice to know angles etc as well. Were they walking towards him or were they all travelling in the same direction. Which direction was the dog approaching from?
I still wonder how hard she threw the ball at the dogs head. 10 Metres is far to travel on grass and through daffodils (width of a four lane carriageway) and the ball was moving faster then a dog was running. It does make you wonder if she threw the ball towards the path without looking who was using it and lied and said the dog knocked it in that direction. It is amazing how certain people automatically think he was riding through at 20mph furiously but take her word that she threw it one way no where near the path and the dog knocked it the other.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Forgive me if I doubt your credibility detector – given that you apparently know that my name is “Boo”, and you think the guy with brain damage, who claims 250 pounds of mass overcame the force of gravity while moving at 2mph is the more trustworthy perspon here.
Uhuru wrote:
Where are you getting 2mph from?
hawkinspeter wrote:
— hawkinspeter Where are you getting 2mph from?— Uhuru
Acording to Daily Mail, he “insistes” he was going “no more than 5mph” prior to the accident, and he claims he “braked hard” before the accident. Braking hard would mean he shaved a significant amount of speed off his insignificant 5mph before the accident.
2mph is a guess based on these claims (really it’s me being faceitous to show just how stupid these claims are). BTW – You can go from 5mph to a complete stop in about 1 foot, according to various online calculators.
Tjerefore, I think he is a less-than-credible witness, given his brain damage and his claims about his speed. I think he was not as in-control or aware as a responsible cyclist should be on a park’s walking path, and thusly that he should – at a minimum – share in the liability.
It’s hard for me to to see how she was negligent. I don’t think she could have reasonably foreseen that her action would cause an accident. And I don’t think her spaniel chasing down a ball that had been thrown was an instance of a dog being “out of control” by any common definition. And, unlike the cyclist, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that her statments are less than credible.
It’s possible that the path he was on is often used by high speed cyclists, and that she was fully aware of this, and therefore she should have know better than to throw a ball anywhere near it. Or maybe her dog has a history of leaping in front of vehicles, so it should always be on leash. Or maybe there’s CCTV footage of her glancing at the cyclist, then throwing the ball much closer to the path than she claimed. In these instances, she should share in the liability. Otherwise, I’m having a real hard time imagining why she should be held liable.
Uhuru wrote:
As I thought – you made it up
As I thought – you made it up.
You’re now bleating about the dog-walker being in control of her dog. After throwing the ball, she was then unable to influence her dog’s direction of travel which is why she tried to warn the cyclist i.e. she could see that she had unintentionally thrown the ball to where there was likely to be a collision. The fact that she was unable to influence her dog is evidence that the dog was not “under control”. Whether or not she was negligent in not keeping her dog under control is a matter of opinion.
My experience of dogs is that they are almost never “under control” when chasing things, though they probably wouldn’t fall under the remit of being “at large”.
hawkinspeter wrote:
OOooooo. You got me!
This is getting surreal. Seriously. Go outside, ride under 5mph. Apply brakes. Tell me if you think this guy is being honest.
“Bleating”? Charmig…
Unless the reporting is wrong, she had not – as you write – unintentionally thrown the ball where it was likely to cause a collision. She threw it elsewhere, and it took a bad bounce off a dog’s head and then onto the path. That does not sound like a “likely” outcome. There;s a meaningful difference.
By your definition, every dog chasing a ball is “out of control”. If that’s how couurts define the phrase, fine. People can no longer exercise dogs off-leash until the wording of the legislation is changed, as it inevitibaly will be as a result. I don’t really see that as a big moral victory for cyclists (and I’m not even a dog owner).
She may not have initially
She may not have initially intended the ball to end up where it did, but according to her, it took a deflection of her dog’s head and was indeed going to where it was likely to cause a collision – that’s why she warned the cyclist.
The throwing of the ball is not really what is at issue here. As a dog owner, she can be held responsible for damage caused by that dog whether or not it was intentional. A calm dog sniffing at flowers could suddenly spot a squirrel, run to chase it and cause a similar incident – it would not affect the dog-owner’s responsibility.
As far as the definition of “in control” – it simply means “able to direct a situation, person or activity”. You’re deluded if you think that there will be legislation change directly because of this case.
I fail to see why there would be any change in behaviour of pet owners and you seem to think that there is a collective of “cyclists” who would celebrate their moral victory. Again, you are deluded.
TBH, if you had met him you
TBH, if you had met him you would have realised he was a trolling arsehole who might have been slightly racist. And I apologise profusely for even suspecting you were this poster.
Now you mentioned in one of your other replies to me that that the point isn’t “in or out of control” but that is what he is suing her over. The dog was “out of her control”. It wasn’t on a lead, it wasn’t coming back when shouted for (although in her statement she never called the dog, just shouted a warning to the cyclist). So if he was allowed to ride there, and there seems to be no byelaw we have found to prove or disprove it, then the whole case resides on the control issue which is her responsibility. Her only defence then is that she was the width of a four lane road away and the ball was thrown nowhere near the path. Then it hit the dogs head and it sped away towards it. So freak event that she couldn’t count on.
Now the reason I would like a better understanding of her events is a few fold. I’m pointing out a spaniel can run at 15 mph so it can cover 10metres in a second or two. However the ball bounced of his head. So how far and how hard had she thrown the ball before it hit the dogs head. How much of an angle from paralel to then the heading towards the path. 45 degrees? 125? What speed was the ball that already might have lost momentum, hitting grass and flowers going that a dogs couldn’t catch it?
And also, if someone had brain damage in an accident, does that suddently make them untrustworthy?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
If the suit is solely about whether or not the dog was “out of control”, then it’s irrelevant where she threw the ball.
However, it is still relevant, in terms of his share of the liability, about how responsibly he was cycling.
To my understanding – and correct me if I’m wrong – this park does not require dogs to be on leads. Therefore, I assume being off-leash doesn’t mean the dog is out of control.
They were playing fetch. I don’t think any dog that’s in the midst of chasing down a ball that has just bounced off its nose will do a recall. Again – if courts decide that this meets the definition of “out of control”, and therefore people can no longer play fetch with dogs on public property, that’s fine. But I somehow doubt this is the definiiton legislators were thinking of when wording the laws.
If, as above, the case hinges on whether or not the dog was in control (by your definition), then this is irrelevant.
If she was using one of the throwing sticks I’m familiar with. And if the ball was bouncy, as they tend to be, the ball could have absolutley been travelling pretty far and fast… or slow and close. But how is is ball speed or distance relevant of the arguemt is that the dog was out of control? Either way, the dog was chasing it and ended up in front of the bike.
I think a brain hemmorage at the scene could diminish a witness’ memory of an event.
Quote:
Yep it could. But I also suspect someone trying to get out of paying £50k could also embellish a story as well and there is as many discrepencies on one side as the other. Like I said, a plan of area and directions of travel etc might help us get more of an idea so we could see the awareness of each person to the other.
I don’t think courts will ban every dog from being exercised off their lead if he wins this case, it would be up to the owner decide on the risk of something happening if they are liable.
This owner for example lost control of his dog and almost got jailed because it was his responsibility. For some reason they never charged Fenton’s owner but it might be they couldn’t use video evidence and needed the park rangers to witness it.
I’m assuming you would be taking exactly the same tone of the owner couldn’t have done anything if the accident involved a toddler tootling along on a balance bike a few feet ahead of the parents. This child was then knocked flying by a dog chasing a ball on the path and landed on it’s head and got a brain injury (even with a helmet). Or should the parents have kept an eye out for errant ball chasing dogs whilst going along.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
In the US, if it was in an area where dogs are permitted to be exercised off leash, and the thrower of the ball was not negligent – so far as they did not throw it in such a way as an accident could be reasonably foreseen – then I do not think the dog-owner would be found liable for the incident.
In the US, there are plenty pf cases involving a dog knocking a person over. And to my understaning, in all states, if the owner wasn’t violating any statutes, the injured party would have to prove negligence.
(If the dog were known for jumping on strangers, and the owner failed to take preventitive measures, then I’d be inclined to assign liability to the dog owner. Same if it were in a place where off-leash exercise was banned. In these cases, the owner was negligent.)
To reverse the question – do you think that if a dog was in an area where it was allowed to be off leash, such as a park, and the dog ran in fron of a car that was possibly going a bit faster than one ought to in this environment and was subsequently killed, that the car owner should be entitled to damages equal to the cost of cleaning the blood and fur off the car’s grill? What if it seemed pretty evident that the car driver was not paying adequate attention to the park environment to see such balls and dogs?
From this link: https://www
From this link: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/a-negligent-dog-owners-liability.html
If a dog bites someone because of its owner’s carelessness, it’s pretty clear that the negligence caused the injuries from the bite. But the question of “proximate cause” is more complicated when the dog hasn’t actually bitten or even touched the injured person. The most common example is when someone gets hurt while running from or trying to avoid a scary dog. In many cases involving dogs chasing cyclists who then fell (discussed above), courts have found that the negligent owners were liable. But the result could be different if the frightened person acts erratically—like suddenly stepping into the street and getting hit by a car; in that case, the court may decide that the car caused the injury, not the dog (see Sink v. Moore, 148 S.E.2d 265 (1966).
hawkinspeter wrote:
To my understanding, those cases are not about dogs in places where the dogs are allowed to be exercised off leash, like a dog-friendly park. Instead, they are in areas where dogs must be leashed/enclosed. There would therefore be strict liability, since the owner is breaking a state law or local ordinanace.
I believe that off-leash exercise is both allowed and commonly expected in London’s parks.
I believe something like this to be analagous: https://njlitigationblog.com/plaintiff-unable-to-pursue-injury-claim-incurred-when-knocked-over-by-defendants-dog-in-dog-park/
In the US, the injured party
In the US, the injured party would probably be legally allowed to shoot the dog in self defence so I think using the “In the US” is not the point as we are in the UK.
As for that weird reversal question, I don’t see how it applies as the cyclist is not claiming for damages to his bike but to him. If the driver were going faster then one ought to, they would be probably be breaking the speed limit at a guess. A more apt question representing this case would be if said vehicle was travelling say 20mph, and the dog gave them a split second notice and they swerved to avoid it, hit something and got injured enough to have permanent damage in some way. Could they claim from the owner then?
As you were using American law for examples, I’m not sure if this means you are American. I you are something you might not know is that there is not a legal speed limit for cyclists on allowed shared paths over here. However Cycling UK suggest 12-15 mph max depending on circumstances which I agree with. Do I think he was doing 5mph? Probably not because I find going about walking speed on a bike is harder to control. Did he think he was doing 5mph? If he didn’t have a speedo, how do you judge your speed?. Do I think he was travelling too fast? Well I doubt someone of his age and build was doing 20mph, esepcially as the path looks rough, but I think he could easily be doing a leisurely 10 mph which would be fine for me when the path is empty and the nearest person is the equivalent of a wide road width away from me.
As I’ve always said, it is an interesting case when resolved either way.
Lets face it – in that there
Lets face it – in that there ‘Merica, the injured party would probably be able to legally shoot the dog’s owner, let alone the dog…
Only if they were not white.
Only if they were not white.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Dual citizen but based in Asia for most of the last decade. I’ve spent significantly more of my adult life spent in the US than UK – and my spouse is a US attorney – so my knowledge and opinions are obviously going to be strongly biased towards that country’s legal systems. However, I don’t think that inherently makes my opinions or reasoning irrelevant to this case. (Or maybe I missed the part of the sign-up process where we had to enter our nationalities, educational achievements and professional backgrounds before commenting on UK news stories?)
And yet he is, apparently, confidently asserting his speed – one of the reasons that make me question his credibility.
So you now agree that there is doubt about his credibiity? Does that mean he could be just as mistaken about the other facts of the case as he is about his speed?
He could have been going faster and not paying as much attention to his surroundings as he should have been, as the defendent seems to claim.
I live in a country with MANY stray dogs. I cycle significantly faster than this guy. I cannot imagine cycling with the absolutle minimum amount of awarness and control that I believe all cyclists should have at 10mph in a park, and still hitting a spaniel in such a way as to send me flying, given all the facts presented through the media about this case.
Agreed!
I’m not stating you couldn’t
I’m not stating you couldn’t comment on it, just that laws are very different sometimes. Does America have the same dangerous dog laws for example? Over here it is illegal to own certain breeds and if a dog attacks a person, the dog is put down and the owner is charged. Also if your lovely wife and you came over to live over here and she wanted a legal job on line to what she had there, she would have to spend time re-learning all the laws etc for a period of time before she could be a prosecutor (or practice any law).
I said I believe he might have been going faster but I can also believe he thought he was doing 5mph. I also don’t believe she isn’t being totally truthful as well. A scenario I could see the liability is the dog owners solely is one where the cyclist is coming from behind them. He rides past them with a massive amount of room as they are 33ft away. Then a second later she throws the ball in the thower but she get is wrong and it travels in a way that will intersect the path ahead and not paralell as she claims. She might have even deliberatel y thrown it as she had looked ahead and it was clear but She hadn’t seen the cyclist as he was to her side. The cyclist had passed them and as they were behind he didn’t need to worry about them and the path ahead was clear. He suddenly hears a shout from behind so looks to see, as he looks he sees the flash of fur and brakes and swings his bike wheel to the side to avoid. He goes over, (look at my video link of the policeman doing similar on his bike under Rick Rudes) and we are in the situation we are in now. She doesn’t want to admit she has quite a bit of blame for the accident because 50K plus legal costs is at stake so her defence is “well, you shouldn’t have been there”, “you were cycling too fast and not looking” AND “anyway, the dog pushed the ball that direction, not me”. Lots of “but but but” in the defence there.
Obviously my scenario only works if they were both travelling in the same direction across the park. If they were travelling in other ways, then it might turn back to he “should have seen the dog” coming. That is why the further info would be useful for our “non-needed” judgements.
I already know your scenarios so you probably don’t need to repeat my war and peace back. My post is more to state why I don’t think the arguments that the cyclist should have seen her throw the ball, or the dog running towards him at speed is as clear cut as some believe. And that he could have ridden through at a reasonable and safe manner and this incident occured before he knew it.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
While living in London, I owned a super-sweet Stafforshire terrier – easily mistaken for a pit bull – and know way too much about the UK’s dangeerous dogs laws. (Not good for vacationing abroad if you want the whole family to get back into the country!)
US law schools teach common law as it’s used in some US states. After having practiced within common law juridstictions, it aint too hard to become a barrister in the UK. But my spouse’s status is irrelevant. I only brought their job up becasue tort law is a very common topic in my social circle. Even so, I am, by definition, ignorant.
That said, given my work, I like to think I have a decent layman’s understanding of some legal matters (in multiple countries). I’m not an attorney, but I doubt any of those I’m arguing with are either? If any are, indeed barristers, I certainly defer to their knowlege.
— AlsoSomniloquism
I gave evidence for why I think he is less than credible. What’s your evidence for why we should doubt her claims? Solely the fact that she’s a defendant in the case? As far as I have read, even the plaintiff isn’t casting doubt on her claims.
If the scenario you describe is accurate, I could see her being assigned some percentage (not all) of the liability; however, none of the claims made by the parties seem to match this hypothetical scenario. Maybe you’ve read other sources that support this narrative?
I have doubts that a wealthy investment banker would risk criminal perjury charges over a mere 50k. I can’t prove that, but the burden of proof is on the person accusing her of lying under oath…
Utimately, I think her claims about his cycling style should make a judge or juror beleive that she’s not 100% liable, and that he bears some respnsibility given the evidence we’ve read (which is surely a tiny percentage of all the evidence that has been submitted). And since his claims seem less credible than hers (to me, anyway, based on available evidence), I think the scales should be hanging heavier on her side.
Staffs are great apart from
Staffs are great apart from their heads are rock solid. My brother had one and if he ran into your knee you knew about it.
I would like to answer the rest, but it would be just covering pretty much the same ground. Maybe when we hear more or when the verdict comes, we can reconvene.
“Jesus Christ, Fenton!”
“Jesus Christ, Fenton!”
Seems like Mr Harris got a bit of a raw deal – he had his dog on a lead and it somehow slipped the collar. That happened to me the other week – I was dog-sitting for a friend and looking after his dog for a couple of days. We were walking along a narrow pavement and I saw another dog walker coming towards us, so I shortened the lead (not an extendable one – it was only like a meter or so in length) to keep the dog under my control. However, somehow the collar pulled over the dog’s head and he stood there calmly as I quickly tried to open it and re-attach it again.
He’s a funny dog though – I was walking him off the lead in a park and there was a nearby game of football (Sunday League maybe?). We were a little way from the game, so I threw a tennis ball for the dog to chase and he went towards the ball , then veered straight towards the footballers to (in his mind) make some new friends. They weren’t best pleased and of course, there’s me shouting to the dog and him ignoring me because he was having fun. He came back after a minute, so I put him back on the lead (naughty boy) and sheepishly let the footballers continue their game.
Uhuru wrote:
Admit it: you think he was riding on one of those Evil TT bikes, don’t you?? 😉
brooksby wrote:
He’d have been fine if there was a small QR code on his bike
Cycling community? Who’s that
Cycling community? Who’s that then…..?
Maybe Felix should countersue
Maybe Felix should countersue the cyclist, as a) he should not have been cycling and b) was evidently not in control of his conveyance. Presumed liability.
What might have happened if a child had run in front of Mr Crane?
The spaniel is getting ruff treatment if you ask me.
Maybe the cyclist was trying
Maybe the cyclist was trying a Vanderoll in tribute to Dave Vanderspek? I’ve pulled a fair few stoppies in my time and 5mph wouldn’t really be fast enough to get you into uncontrolled endo mode. I can only imagine the cyclist was riding like this?
How fast do you reckon this
How fast do you reckon this copper was going here.
https://metro.co.uk/video/police-officer-suffers-nasty-bike-fail-chasing-suspect-2034264/
10-15mph? He obviously had to slow down for the passing car. But as soon as the wheel stops dead he is over the bars in a split second.
I’ve not seen anywhere where he said he saw the dog and braked. Maybe that was in another report. I think too many cyclists here are equating braking fast to stopping dead from that speed and assuming it is exactly the same.
For anyone who wants to recreate this to see what happens to them I suggest rolling towards a small wall or obstruction at 5-10mph without braking and ensuring you stop dead by hitting it only. (However it won’t be a potential true representation really as you will be braced for it as you know it will happen).
Having watched the video I’m
Having watched the video I’m trying to figure how he managed to do that. I can’t imagine my SRAM Red discs stopping my bike dead like that. They’re crap. I’m wondering if my road by brakes would do it. It would have to be a real panic grab on the levers. Anyway, I won’t be trying it to find out.
If you look closely, his
If you look closely, his wheel is bent at the end so I think either it was weak and it gave way under the load, or he turned it too tight so the angle was too much to continue rolling. All momentum of the bike was stopped and the force bent the wheel. Obviously as he was seperate to the bike, his forward momentum continued.
I think you’re right. Apart
I think you’re right. Apart from something getting in the spokes until it hit the fork, for which I see no evidence, I can’t think of any other cause.
After reading a few more news
After reading a few more news articles, it looks like the cyclist doesn’t remeber actaully hitting the dog, but rather clams it was his braking that sent him over the bars.
I strongly doubt this refinement of the narrative will change anyone’s mind about anything. But at least it’s nice to know that the pooch didn’t get a GP 4000 skid mark across its withers.
Scwlabe Marthons maybe, or
Scwlabe Marthons maybe, or even Fat Frank.