TurnerGuy - MemberTG would need to demonstrate negligence.
I can easily do that, and often do
Ah ha, so you are a human male then!
TJ - precedent, fair enough but where?
Bike Forum
Bordering on the ridiculous...
-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
i say take the money, go see a doc about the leg and be more carefull next time
Posted 5 months ago # -
There is loads of legal precedent for this. You may want to deny it / ignore it but its there. Just google you will find cases. You will also find case where a cyclist ahas killed a dog and been pursued for damages and the case fails.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Dog causes damage, dog owner liable. the dog has to be under control at all times and if it knocks someone off who is riding lawfully and reasonably then the dog owner is liable with no real defense
6 or half dozen....
in these circumstances it's down to one party to prove and the other to defend. Look at the PI industry, people making thousands simply by threatening court action and in the vast majority they never make it to court. So in reality it's not who was truly at fault but who's got the bigger nads to take it the furthest.
In this instance I think the dog owner has been very civilised in offering some compo.
Their has to be a point at which we all accept or even expect to endure these situations at some point in out riding careers
Posted 5 months ago # -
TOTALLY AGREE
Posted 5 months ago # -
could just put it all down to experience - good that the dog owner actually sent you what she said you would - bet she has no idea was bike stuff costs.
if the dog had bitten/attacked you it would have been different matter of course...
Posted 5 months ago # -
Animals such as family pet dogs can be a nuisance to cyclists. A dog’s natural instinct is to give chase to anything that moves; this includes any passing cyclist and can result in the dog causing the rider to fall. In a case like this it is possible to make a bike accident compensation claim against the owner of the dog.
TJ - they are all enviaging dogs jumping up/attacking, and/or on the public highway, which is a wholly different matter. If this had occurred on a highway I would probably agree 100%.
Its all very well being all bullish and righteous about it, but misinterpretaion, misquoting and misapplication of the law does not make out a case.
The essential differences to the law you are relying on is - its not on the highway or land where there is livestock, it doesnt involve a dangeours dog, it doesnt involve a dog 'attacking'.
And to say the dog was out of control is like saying that every accidental bump you have in your car must mean you are liable for dangerous driving because you were by very nature out of control of the vehicle at the time.
Posted 5 months ago # -
http://www.myfirststep.co.uk/site/library/pi/cycleist_wins_compensation_form_dog_owner.html
No mention of strict liability in there.
The first one - no one is saying the dog (owner) is not at fault, however TG needs to make out their negligence and lack of his own - it is a negligecne claim.
The second one is about a dog attacking. Completely different.
Posted 5 months ago # -
how do I claim against the fox that caused me to crash the other night?
I'll nail his bushy tail to the wall if I ever see him again!
Posted 5 months ago # -
You think those accident and injury claims companies are doing a good service eh TJ?
They make me bloody sick.Posted 5 months ago # -
Why shoul the cyclist be out of pocket? he was simply riding along mnding his own business when a dog knocked him off his bike?
Well I do hope you have insurance and I do hope that your dog is kept under control and does not injure or damage anything
I really cannot be bothered with the way dog owners will go to any lengths to get out of their legal liability.
Its clear and simply - you have a duty to keep your dog under control, you are liable for any damage your dog causes because it is not under control. Lots of different bits of law, lots of legal precedent
From the kennel club! that rabidly anti dog organisation
Animals Act 1971
You could be liable for damage caused by your dog under this Act or under some degree of negligence. It is highly advisable to have third party liability insurance to cover this, something that is included in most pet and some household insurance policies.
Posted 5 months ago # -
could just put it all down to experience
I have - not going to claim.
I was thinking about putting an extra 20mm on my forks anyway after Hora caused me to fixate about the steepness of the head-angle on my Turner
Posted 5 months ago # -
Didn't read the original post relating to the incident but I agree with TJ on this one. If the dog was not under control and has caused damage then she is fully liable and should pay for any damages caused. We have pet insurance for our dog which is primarily for repair bills when he decides to run under a barbed wire fence and can't judge the height properly, or when he chews on a stick and it embeds itself in his mouth, however it does cover for us for eventualities like this where, if he wasn't under control and caused a problem, people could claim off our insurance.
Posted 5 months ago # -
if I encounter a dog or dogs and their owners which out pirbright/tunnel hill way is quite often i make an effort to stop/say hello..
stopping particularly if the dogs looks like the type to start chasing you - stop and talking to the dog often stops them chasing you and conversely saves the owner having to shouts / chase after them / blaming you for their dog running..
in the OPs case just sounds like two users enjoying the same bit of space with a bit of unlucky conflict. The same could happen if a Deer ran across your path.
anyhow, main thing is that you are mainly ok and tis as you say a good excuse to buy some new stuff!
Posted 5 months ago # -
Didn't read the original post relating to the incident but I agree with TJ on this one.
What do you agree with, his misinterpretation of the law, misquoting of so called 'precedents' which he doesnt understand
TJ - he wasnt 'minding his own business when he was suddely knocked off his bike.' He was sharing common ground on his mountain bike, with another person with his dog and they ran into each other.
It is clear and simply - you have a duty to keep your dog under control, you are liable for any damage your dog causes because it is not under control. Lots of different bits of law, lots of legal precedent
No it is not, you have a little knowledge of the law, you have mostly misquoted and misinterpreted it to suit your argument and any amount of righteous indignation will not make you right.
Again I repeat - I do not diagree that the dog (owner) may be at fault at least partially, but it is straight negligence and TG would have to make out his case. He has no strict liability to rely upon.
As for dog owners not having control of / failing to maintain control of their dogs - I am certainly with you there. I expect a dog owner to be the undisputed alpha with the dog trained to the gun
Posted 5 months ago # -
TJ, the master of balanced and rational communications, strikes again I see.
It's odd though that TJ hasn't actually managed to link to anything that seems to really support his absolutely definitive statements i.e. that it's a matter of "strict liability". Fervent Googling (IMO) appears to have only found him relatively vague or oblique references to liability in the form of solicitors touting for business. I wouldn't have made the proud boast that there's "loads of precedent" on that basis.
Are there any links to some actual records of court proceedings and/or judegements?
Posted 5 months ago # -
sugdenr
the dog and the human are not equal this is your and most doge owners mistake in this area
he was going about his lawful business when knocked off by a dog. The dog was therefore not under control or this wouldn't have happened thus the dog owner is liable. The dog owner has a legal duty to keep the dog under control they failed in this duty, the dog owner is liable
Simple , clear and straightforward.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Oh lord.
Do you have special glasses or something?
Sod it, life's too short
Posted 5 months ago # -
The dog owner has a legal duty to keep the dog under control they failed in this duty, the dog owner is liable
This basically.
As a dog owner and someone who rarely agrees with TJ!!
Posted 5 months ago # -
I am a dog lover, used to have one, and have worked with them. But I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of training dogs are receiving. Some owners are downright irresponsible by yapping on their phone rather than playing with/watching their dog. Training is ongoing and needs to be reinforced.
I know TJ gets a flaming on this subject but I do find myself agreeing with him.
Posted 5 months ago # -
As much as I would like TJ to be right (i.e. dog not under control = dog owner legally at fault) this doesn't seem to be the case unfortunately! There seems to have been a precedent set at some point whereby if the owner is not expecting the dog to misbehave - due to breed or individual temperament - then the owner will get off scott free!!
http://www.hmsolicitors.co.uk/news/personal_injury_news/runner-loses-15-000-dog-damages
Posted 5 months ago # -
When I read the original thread I just thought "accidents happen".
Seems that nowadays accidents only happen to keep lawyers busy.
It's extremely bad luck. But then again MTBing is a dangerous pastime, and things can get damaged in pursuit of said pastime.
£50 is a nice gesturePosted 5 months ago # -
Missed the previous post a couple of weeks ago - what happened and what were the calamitous circumstances culminating in the the collision with the collie?
Posted 5 months ago # -
Too add fuel to the fire, the dog is now sueing for wiplash, and extract from his solicitor, TJ's alter-ego TricycleJames;
he was going about his lawful business when knocked over by a cyclist. The bike was therefore not under control or this wouldn't have happened thus the cyclist is liable. The cyclist has a legal duty to keep the bike under control they failed in this duty, the cyclist is liable
Posted 5 months ago # -
sugdenr
the dog and the human are not equal this is your and most doge owners mistake in this area
he was going about his lawful business when knocked off by a dog. The dog was therefore not under control or this wouldn't have happened thus the dog owner is liable. The dog owner has a legal duty to keep the dog under control they failed in this duty, the dog owner is liable
Simple , clear and straightforward.
TJ - Just because you will argue that day turns into night and therefore white is black, doesn't make it true.
I have no problem with your opinion that the dog owner should be liable, but stop opining about legal duties based on your half-baked understanding of legal theory, predecated on the premises that the dog 'knocked him off his bike' like some ninja terrier.
Absent a statutory basis, a legal duty is the basis of a negligence action, which is, yet again, for TG to make out. TG had a duty of care (to himself) not to ride his bike at a speed where he couldn't react to any unexpected peril. And as the claim is against the OWNER, your concept that man and dog are not equal is completely irrelevant because owner is not claiming for damage against dog.
The dog could have been a small deer, what would you advocate then? Put Bambi up against a wall and shoot him for attacking defenseless MTB rider?
Why dont you add - 'So there, nah nah na nah na!' to your post for good effect.
Posted 5 months ago # -
what were the calamitous circumstances culminating in the the collision with the collie?
Posted 5 months ago # -
Seems that nowadays accidents only happen to keep lawyers busy.
Why whatever makes you say that:
Mr Whippey, from Castleford, West Yorkshire, had been ordered to pay Mr Jones £15,000 damages along with a further £25,000 in lawyers' bills .
Posted 5 months ago # -
TG had a duty of care (to himself) not to ride his bike at a speed where he couldn't react to any unexpected peril
that makes just about all cycle accidents in London the cyclists fault - particularly that video the other day when the car pulled out on the cyclist and then he got run over my the dappy woman in the focus.
difference is that he could see the car waiting to come out - so could expect it.
I couldn't see the dog, it is feasible that he could have kncoked over someone walking at that point as he darted out from behind the bush from my viewpoint, although it was actually a path.
(no marked bridleways or paths on the common...)
Posted 5 months ago # -
I see from the link above that the "animal act" argument has already been had.
TJ, do you ever think to yourself, "y'know what, i think I've made my point, I've nothing more that's pertinent to say here?"
Posted 5 months ago # -
ed - trying to learn that hence no more posts on this
Posted 5 months ago # -
ed - trying to learn that hence no more posts on this
LOL
Heard that before.
Posted 5 months ago # -
turner guy , kudos for being level headed in the face of your bike being smashed up, ive a lot of respect for you for that.
also to the woman for sending you 50 quid - most people have no idea of what we spend on bits and a bet she though that would be more then enough.
hope you get better in time for skiing, try regularly rubbing oil into that lump to help the scar tissue break down. bio-oil is the best but expensive, baby oil will do but wont work as quick.Posted 5 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
