Cyclist injured in crash with dog chasing ball sues owner for £50,000

Scwlabe Marthons maybe, or even Fat Frank. 

How fast do you reckon this copper was going here. 

https://metro.co.uk/video/police-officer-suffers-nasty-bike-fail-chasing...

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 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 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 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.

Are you familiar with English civil law and insurance claims?

Which PBU are you again ?

Hmm, Boo disappears, and within a few hours a poster comes in and their first five posts......

Anyway welcome back boo Uhuru 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:

Hmm, Boo disappears, and within a few hours a poster comes in and their first five posts......

Coincidence, I'm sure...

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Hmm, Boo disappears, and within a few hours a poster comes in and their first five posts......

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. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

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, 

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?

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Anyway welcome

Er... yeah. thanks for the warm welcome. 

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:

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.

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 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 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:

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. 

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:

... 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.  

Where are you getting 2mph from?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Uhuru wrote:

... 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.  

Where are you getting 2mph from?

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:

Acording to Daily Mail

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:

As I thought - you made it up.

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. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

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".

"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 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 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:

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. 

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. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

It wasn't on a lead,

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.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

it wasn't coming back when shouted for 

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. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

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. 

If, as above, the case hinges on whether or not the dog was in control (by your definition), then this is irrelevant. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

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?

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.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

And also, if someone had brain damage in an accident, does that suddently make them untrustworthy?

I think a brain hemmorage at the scene could diminish a witness' memory of an event. 

Quote:

I think a brain hemmorage at the scene could diminish a witness' memory of an event.

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:

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.

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.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/a-negligent-dog-owners-liability.html

Quote:

Did Negligence Cause the Injury?

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:

From this link: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/a-negligent-dog-owners-liability.html

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-inc...