Crashed into an out of control dog – what next?

Cyclelaw Scotland aren’t based too far from you. Be worthwhile sending them an email.

Contrary to how some owners behave, dogs are not children.

That’s true, kids are annoying little shits.

The dog owner is liable for the damage caused  end of.  they cyclist is not liable for the damage to the dog unless the owners can show negligence which is almost impossible.

there is no need to prove anything with the claim against the dog owner – the facts are clear.  the dog was not under control and caused a bike rider to crash

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-about-animals-other-animals.html

dog owner is liable for the damage caused  end of

How is this conclusion reached? Lots of case law where this is not so.

Most well known is perhaps Jones v Whippey from 2009. A great Dane jumped up at a runner in a park pushing him over and causing injury. Runner claimed against owner and won. Owner went to Court of appeal who said the owner not liable. (And the runner was left with a £25k legal bill)

The statements we have read here clearly indicate some differences but I don’t think saying the dog owner is liable in such a clear cut way is correct.

More info on Hector the great Dane here – https://www.sleeblackwell.co.uk/legal-articles/when-good-dogs-go-bad

The dog owner is liable for the damage caused  end of.  they cyclist is not liable for the damage to the dog unless the owners can show negligence which is almost impossible.

there is no need to prove anything with the claim against the dog owner – the facts are clear.  the dog was not under control and caused a bike rider to crash

You mean apart from the burden of proof, it’s all hearsay you’ve based your conclusion on, as someone said in the previous page, if you read the dog owners story over on dogwalkersworld.com, you’ll get many doing the counter conclusion, this isn’t going in front of judge rinder on TV, it’s going through an online claim system that’ll be reading two counter claims, without witness statements, video evidence, etc, all it’s going to say is Claim 1 – out of control dog, Claim 2 – Cyclist going too fast with others using the path.

@db thanks, that’s an interesting read. Not as straightforward as I (or most folks would) thought.

Claim 1 – out of control dog, Claim 2 – Cyclist going too fast with others using the path.

The latter is speculative; the former is definitive. No lead = no control in this setting.
Presumably, the GPS data would wipe the excessive speed argument out anyway.

.

Yeah, I tracked the ride on my phone (the GPS computer I use these days so I have some data in front of me, but it’s such a faff to connect to Strava I use both). If the GPS comes to life I’ll see if I can get the data off that, then I’d have two points of reference to show that I’d slowed right down.

After a polite email last night listing the cost of the damaged equipment and providing links to show I’d given the lowest possible price for them, he’s doubled down and is surprised that I’m blaming his dog for the accident. He had already been to the vet (he sent me a photo in the original email) and is going back today for an X ray and will send me the bill.

I find as I get older, and after a car insurance claim where I was the innocent party but still ended up in court for hire car fees and several grand down on the deal, I just don’t have the fight for this sort of thing anymore. Even if morons can’t keep their dogs on leads and it’s me who loses out because of it.

I hit it side on at 4.8mph according to Strava, went straight over the bars and hit the deck tangled up in my bike.

Playing devil’s advocate, had you have slowed down further than running speed then the accident could possibly have been avoided and/or the impact lower so it could be argued you were already going too fast on a shared path to respond to what could happen, particularly given you were aware of people/dogs in the area.

Next time it could a be child’s face.

Would this conversation be different if it had been a child running out in front of you?  You’ve got insurance for the parents to claim on, right?

I find as I get older, and after a car insurance claim where I was the innocent party but still ended up in court for hire car fees and several grand down on the deal, I just don’t have the fight for this sort of thing anymore. Even if morons can’t keep their dogs on leads and it’s me who loses out because of it.

That’s the way i see it these days, hence the comments, had similar with a car accident a while back, new driver (3 weeks post test) came through a red, straight into our car turning, witness on our side, she defended herself in court, made a mess of it and the prosecutor helped her, magistrate put it down as 50/50, because they weren’t sure her light was red, as us and witness didn’t see from that angle! She tried claiming on our insurance as well, thankfully thrown out, so at least she was off the road for a while!

Had another one where someone in a car park reversed into me whilst we were in a queue of traffic, they were instantly defensive and so on, all i could see was paying the excess, my insurance going up, and nothing but hassle, i just walked away and lived with the dents, it’s sad that this is how most folk think now, you have an accident but you’re apportioned blame no matter what, and have costs to contend with as well.

I just don’t have the fight for this sort of thing anymore

Are you insured? Either through BC or on your home policy? If so, it’s probably time to get them involved.

On the High Peak Trail I ran over a child and her bike once when she veered into my path and fell off. With my epic bike skills I managed to stay on my bike and stopped to see if she was all right.

The parents then apologised to me and gave the girl a clout for being dozzy! Not her best day. :-)

After a polite email last night listing the cost of the damaged equipment and providing links to show I’d given the lowest possible price for them, he’s doubled down and is surprised that I’m blaming his dog for the accident. He had already been to the vet (he sent me a photo in the original email) and is going back today for an X ray and will send me the bill.

That’s shit. I’d stop communicating now as this could get messy.
If you have legal expenses on your home insurance I’d give them a call for some advice. If he starts claiming vets fees you could soon be into thousands.

How is this conclusion reached? Lots of case law where this is not so.

Most well known is perhaps Jones v Whippey Whippet from 2009

Ftfy

More info on Hector the great Dane here – https://www.sleeblackwell.co.uk/legal-articles/when-good-dogs-go-bad

Interesting read. two things come to mind…
Firstly, (and IANAL) the idea of negligence and reasonable expectation on behalf of the owner/handler of the dog(s); In such a setting as a mixed use path, should a dog run in front of, or hit a cyclist, there would be the likely potential for damage/injury that could ‘reasonably be expected’, as in the ‘Cowley vs Clements’ case referenced in the article. I appreciate that as with all case law, the outcome is at the whim of the judge and their reasoning.

Secondly, I can’t help but be disappointed that Mr Whippey is a RSPCA Inspector, and not an Ice-Cream man! 😂

Playing devil’s advocate, had you have slowed down further than running speed.

You think 4.8mph is running speed? That’s a fast walking pace. UK cyclepaths are designed for approx 12mph; anything below that is utterly reasonable, given that the obstacle wasn’t visible.
Anyways, I’d also be thinking about the high cost the owners are facing for their poor judgement in letting dogs off the lead in the first place, if they’re being honest. Maybe a hefty bill will help, or increased insurance premiums at the very least.

Yep, walking speed which is perfect to show due care was given. But that is the only evidence in this whole debacle.
What are the sum of the damages? Cant worth the hassle?

After a polite email last night listing the cost of the damaged equipment and providing links to show I’d given the lowest possible price for them, he’s doubled down and is surprised that I’m blaming his dog for the accident. He had already been to the vet (he sent me a photo in the original email) and is going back today for an X ray and will send me the bill.

It is a shit state of affairs.

I would be quickly going to my home insurance or cycling organisation membership and asking advice.
As I said before, part of me is an awkward enough git that I would want to go after them – but risk/benefit suggests they are going to push back hard and try to blame you.

And anyone saying that the 4-5mph is too fast and opens you up to liability needs to think again – it is a fast walking/slow jog speed. What are you meant to do – stop everytime you see a dog / child / other human / bump?

Thanks for the tip for Cycle Law Scotland @kirkg – I’ve met one of their lawyers through some charity work. I gave CLS a call this morning and they’ve been very helpful. They’ll only take it on if there’s personal injury (which there is, but it’s tiny) but will recover kit costs at the same time.

Crucially, they confirmed that there’s a strict liability to keep a dog under control and a dog off a lead like this in Scotland next to part of the National Cycle Network would break that.

While the injury part is not my main focus, since it’s small, this does seem like a sure fire way to get the right result and money back for my kit. I think if I handle it myself I’ll just keep digging myself into holes, potentially saying the wrong thing and going round in circles with the guy. It seems a bit OTT and ambulance-chasey but if the guy won’t pay because it’s the right thing to do, what other options do I have? It’s no-win no-fee and presumably less hassle for me (I have found this sort of thing tends to make me depressed).

I could say to him “I’ve spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I’ll instruct them to proceed”.  Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.

I appreciate that as with all case law, the outcome is at the whim of the judge and their reasoning.

Very much this. If you go to court do we think the judge will be more supportive of the cyclists or the dog walker. Maybe you are lucky and get a judge who is keen cyclist and cat lover. Or you get a Labrador owning judge who hates cyclists who get in the way of their SUV when they are trying to make progress.

Ultimately I just can’t see the OP ‘winning’ here or even breaking even despite the encouragement lots of people are giving them. I’m not saying this right, just my humble opinion.

It seems a bit OTT and ambulance-chasey but if the guy won’t pay because it’s the right thing to do, what other options do I have? It’s no-win no-fee and presumably less hassle for me (I have found this sort of thing tends to make me depressed).

I think that there is a) a principle or responsibility here and b) damage to you and your kit. It is what it is – and not ambulance chasing IMO.

I could say to him “I’ve spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I’ll instruct them to proceed”. Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.

I would give the dog owner one last chance – make it clear who the company you are speaking to are so they can see their track record and know you are not messing around and that law is on your side.

Honestly; I’m torn on this one (as both a cyclist and a dog owner) – My initial reaction is that it is just an accident (they do happen) – and I’m not a fan of pointing a finger of blame. If this was my dog; I’d have been apologetic and offered to replace the damage items as a goodwill gesture. However; if the dog was genuinely injured seriously enough to need any kind of medical treatment then honestly I’d be wondering just how quickly you were going – especially if it happened out of my sight. There are no winners here; but if your injury isn’t really bad enough to warrant a solicitors claim (I don’t know if it is) then that feels like you are finding an excuse to punish this guy for not being willing to pony up.

I could say to him “I’ve spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I’ll instruct them to proceed”. Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.

This is what I would do.  Give them one chance to do the right thing and pay the few hundred for damaged kit.  I would probably discuss it with the lawyer first.  But if the laywer thinks its a good chance?  Why on earth would you not?  My guess is they will have insurance as well.

Four pages of trying to apportion blame for a ‘thing’ that happened whilst out and about where there was really no blame, just an unfortunate set of circumstances.

Personally, I’d be getting on with my life and chalking it up “sometimes shit happens”.

I’d be wondering just how quickly you were going – especially if it happened out of my sight

Appreciate your honesty, but the fundamental point is just what you’ve said; that your dog would be out of sight. How would you be able to keep it under control in that situation, and would that be acceptable in an incident like this? I doubt it, personally.
The simple fact is that dogs must be on leads, as confirmed.

You think 4.8mph is running speed? That’s a fast walking pace.

Yes I do and Wikipedia lean towards agreeing with me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_from_walking_to_running

Of course, it’s a moot point as it was still to fast to deal with the unexpected.

I’m leaning more towards just instructing the solicitor to get on with it. It’s what my wife has said to do. If I give him one last chance maybe it’ll give them the opportunity to instruct their own solicitor.

@dave_h – sometimes out of control dogs cause problems. That’s not shit happening, it’s completely unavoidable. As for “going too fast to deal with the unexpected” – do you only ever ride your bike at 1mph? Anything could happen at any time.

@dh – I think the fact that it’s strict liability in Scotland maybe makes a difference here. Given no-win no-fee solicitors only take things on if they feel they have a pretty certain chance of winning, and they’re keen to do so, maybe it’s more clear cut than you reckon.

@stevehine – I realise I’ve not mentioned the state of the dog. It seemed fine, but very scared. From the photos he’s sent me, it has lost a thin line of hair on its right flank and nothing more.

The simple fact is that dogs must be on leads, as confirmed.

Not under Scots law.  They must be under control.  Close control around livestock.  One way of doing this is a lead but a well trained dog and a careful owner need not use a lead.

I know the spot this has happened. I bet the owner just let an excited dog out of a car and it ran out onto the WOL walkway which is a main cycle route with signs asking owners to control dogs.  Its uphill IIRC as well that stretch so even a racing snake like munrobiker will not be going that fast

A careful owner would not have let that happen – either the dog is called back or it doesn’t run off until told to.  One on the main path sight lines are good so its no issue generally

as it was still to fast to deal with the unexpected

I watched someone who was stationary on a bike get rear-ended at traffic lights recently. Their fault as well I guess, for not having eyes in the back of their head to see the electric car. Just a light tap, so no damage. But still.

Personally, I’d be getting on with my life and chalking it up “sometimes shit happens”.

Which is fine until munrobiker gets landed with a vet bill for several hundred pounds.

Lawyer up!

I could say to him “I’ve spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I’ll instruct them to proceed”. Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.

Have you actually spoken to a solicitor, or just read TJ’s posts?

I’d go go straight to your BC/CUK membership if you have it and let them advise/deal with it.

You’ve done the reasonable thing here and offered them a cheap-ish way to resolve it. If they don’t accept that then things only get worse than that for you (either they expect some sort of negotiation, or they’re going to bill you for all the dogs bills).

If you don’t go to your BC/CUK solicitor and 3rd party insurance (or home insurance) now then you might find there’s nothing they can do because you’ve inadvertently said something silly like “I’m not injured just pay for the gps” thinking you’re being the good guy, but in saying that your insurance/no-win-no-fee will no longer cover it as there’s no money in it for them.

@tjagain – it was nearer the canal, so not out of a car – their dogs were running loose in the dells. You’re right – it was uphill. And I, naturally, don’t treat the WoL as a stretch for training in heart rate zone twenty or whatever – it’s a shared use path and a nice way out of the city!

TINAS – yeah, I spoke to a proper lawyer this morning.

@squirrelking I have not said anything about rinsing, all I said was that if they had to pay vet bills then there’s a lesson to be learned. But, you know what, once again cyclists are being demonised by the public and treated as the lowest of the low. As I said way back, it’s worth talking with the local council about this to ascertain if there’s been any previous incidents/accidents and really whether it’s on their radar in any shape or form. Add the local councillor to the list, local cycling club too. Stats would be very useful as would even an informal chat to path users to see if anything useful could be gleaned.

Not under Scots law. They must be under control.

I was going by this:

Crucially, they confirmed that there’s a strict liability to keep a dog under control and a dog off a lead like this in Scotland next to part of the National Cycle Network would break that.

Combined with the clarity of the Highway Code, I’d be interested to see how that can be interpreted differently.

Tinas – look at munrobikers post above – he has.

hightensiononline – its just that that is how its described in the law .  A dog that walks to heel on command and that returns to call reliably is under control.  This dog did not meet that standard.  It was not under control.

– it was uphill. And I, naturally, don’t treat the WoL as a stretch for training in heart rate zone twenty or whatever

I’ve got to ask it, you were going uphill, at 4.8mph, the dog hit you sideways, how did you end up over the bars?

This is just personal understanding, and the problem with statements, it can confuse the life out of folks!

Totally agree about that actual dog control, but just wondering why this would not be relevant:

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.

Is it not a shared path?

I understand people want to let their dogs off their leads, so do that in a suitable area – a field or private garden, for example.

hightensiononline – its just that that is how its described in the law .  A dog that walks to heel on command and that returns to call reliably is under control.  This dog did not meet that standard.  It was not under control.

Only you can’t accurately state that as fact.

From the other perspective, “munrobiker was riding his bike too fast taking the dog walker by surprise and not giving the opportunity to call the dog to heal”.