Advice on accident involving a dog
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
Bit of a freak incident though really. I'd much rather that they clamped down on even 1% of acts of speeding, aggressive driving and unsafe overtaking than every dog owner who momentarily leaves a gate open.
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
But the dog owner should pay for any damage. If you keep a dog, you have to accept that part of the deal is you're responsible for its actions. The cyclist certainly ought not to have to pay for the damage.
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
Flinders wrote:But the dog owner should pay for any damage. If you keep a dog, you have to accept that part of the deal is you're responsible for its actions. The cyclist certainly ought not to have to pay for the damage.
Yes. I don't think anyone is arguing the civil liability but I don't think a criminal prosecution is necessary.
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
No one asked So I will "how is the Dog?
NUKe
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
NUKe wrote:No one asked So I will "how is the Dog?
Feeling hounded.
-
- Posts: 238
- Joined: 21 Apr 2013, 4:10pm
- Location: Swindon
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
pompeyreece wrote:There were no witnesses, the owner came out and admitted she'd accidentally must've left the gate open (she had popped next door to feed the next door neighbour's cat) which is how the dog escaped.
Its worth pointing out that what people say after an accident and what they say X time later when they've been handed a compensation claim or spoken to an insurance company are totally different.
How would you counter a "no I didn't I said bloody postie/meter reader etc"
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
LondonBikeCommuter wrote:pompeyreece wrote:There were no witnesses, the owner came out and admitted she'd accidentally must've left the gate open (she had popped next door to feed the next door neighbour's cat) which is how the dog escaped.
Its worth pointing out that what people say after an accident and what they say X time later when they've been handed a compensation claim or spoken to an insurance company are totally different.
How would you counter a "no I didn't I said bloody postie/meter reader etc"
Balance of probabilities is used in civil cases. The judge will ask "which is more likely?" - Cyclist is lying about the dog owner saying she'd left the gate open, or dog owner is lying about the postman (many of them hate being called posties; my father was one who did)/meter reader.
-
- Posts: 238
- Joined: 21 Apr 2013, 4:10pm
- Location: Swindon
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
karlt wrote:LondonBikeCommuter wrote:pompeyreece wrote:There were no witnesses, the owner came out and admitted she'd accidentally must've left the gate open (she had popped next door to feed the next door neighbour's cat) which is how the dog escaped.
Its worth pointing out that what people say after an accident and what they say X time later when they've been handed a compensation claim or spoken to an insurance company are totally different.
How would you counter a "no I didn't I said bloody postie/meter reader etc"
Balance of probabilities is used in civil cases. The judge will ask "which is more likely?" - Cyclist is lying about the dog owner saying she'd left the gate open, or dog owner is lying about the postman (many of them hate being called posties; my father was one who did)/meter reader.
Agreed, what I was saying was that don't rely on people's story staying the same as it often doesn't when blame and money are at stake.
BTW my postperson is a woman
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
What you need to refer to is not the Dangerous Dogs Act but the Road Traffic Act 1988 s27
It starts:
It starts:
(1)A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence.
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
But it then goes on
With the next parts explaining how a road becomes a "designated road", s27 only applies to "designated roads" not all roads.
(2) In this section “designated road” means a length of road specified by an order in that behalf of the local authority in whose area the length of road is situated.
With the next parts explaining how a road becomes a "designated road", s27 only applies to "designated roads" not all roads.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
A guy in CTC Derby got knocked of by a farm dog while out on a club run a few years ago. Claimed his out of pocket expenses, including a new frame, with the CTCs insurers.
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
gaz wrote:But it then goes on(2) In this section “designated road” means a length of road specified by an order in that behalf of the local authority in whose area the length of road is situated.
With the next parts explaining how a road becomes a "designated road", s27 only applies to "designated roads" not all roads.
Yes but designated roads can be all roads. See for example Newham which designates "all Highways footpaths and verges and alleyways across the borough of Newham and areas listed below"
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
TonyR wrote:What you need to refer to is not the Dangerous Dogs Act but the Road Traffic Act 1988 s27
It starts:(1)A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence.
But of little relevance to a civil claim. The above is the police/CPS' concern if they want to prosecute.
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
karlt wrote:TonyR wrote:What you need to refer to is not the Dangerous Dogs Act but the Road Traffic Act 1988 s27
It starts:(1)A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence.
But of little relevance to a civil claim. The above is the police/CPS' concern if they want to prosecute.
Relevance is that the you could reasonably expect dogs to not be roaming loose. Not a defence you could apply against a cat for instance...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Re: Advice on accident involving a dog
karlt wrote:TonyR wrote:What you need to refer to is not the Dangerous Dogs Act but the Road Traffic Act 1988 s27
It starts:(1)A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence.
But of little relevance to a civil claim. The above is the police/CPS' concern if they want to prosecute.
It may have little relevance, but it does have some. Even if the dog owner is not prosecuted, there is an implied responsibility in the criminal law.
That said, it doesn't help the OP much to discuss the finer points of criminal law, if all he wants is compensation.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom