When I was knocked down when walking my dogs by a person driving legally and not breaking any laws, the police told me that I could claim for injury against the the driver. As I and the dogs were only bruised I didn't bother, but it would have come out of the driver's insurance. Basically the pedestrian is assumed to be the innocent party.

So someone steps off the pavement or runs into the road right in front of the car (not saying this is what you did JG :)) so the driver has no chance to stop and the driver potentially loses his/her no claims bonus because that person is able to claim on their insurance?  Doesn't seem fair to me and no wonder insurance premiums are so high.  I don't think the pedestrian should be assumed to be the innocent party - each case should be taken on its own merits.

That's why motorists have to have insurance and pedestrians don't.

Yes but I thought the main reason for having insurance was to pay out when the driver has actually done something wrong! :)

Hitting a pedestrian is wrong, no matter what caused it ... ;)

The pedestrian is a lot more vulnerable but should that mean the driver should always be financially liable even if the pedestrian was clearly at fault?  Not saying it isn't the case - I'll take your word on that - but debating whether it is reasonable.

Not when I was hit by a car :) :) I had no compensation for spending almost 4 months in hospital :)

Daisy

I think it would be looked at in terms of whether you had done everything to be expected of you.  For instance if you saw a child at the side of the road and a ball rolled out but you did not bother to even slow down you might be seen as careless even though the child should not have run out, similarly I think if you knew your dog was likely to bite an intruder you would be expected to take reasonable care over securing it from humans, even uninvited humans :)

I would agree with the first bit Isabel but not the second!

I think the law would agree with Isabel on both points.

We're going round in circles here and could argue till the cows come home - I'm giving up now, but haven't changed my mind. :D :D

Its the same as the burgler who enters your home,and whilst getting in through the window cuts his arm open, he can sue you for compensation.........

....presumably you could counter-sue him for the damage he caused to your property ? :)

Bet you couldn't tyby - and he/she would probably get legal aid to sue you whereas you probably wouldn't be able to! :rolleyes:

quote from Isabel..
Yes, but the fencing has to be very good, probably more than six foot I would say and certainly with features making it very difficult to climb such as an overhang. 
but aren't there certain rules and regs with regard to planning permission or similar, that stipulate certain permissions required to have boundary fences and walls over a certain height?

Yes, I thought it was 6ft but it could be 2 metres.  I do feel what Isabel has suggested is over the top for the average private house with family pets.

hmm, well yes, we'll all be barricading ourselves in next!

>I do feel what Isabel has suggested is over the top for the average private house with family pets.

Isabel agrees :)  My dogs have never needed securing in this way :)

gosh.. well Isabel, its to be hoped your dogs never do bite an intruder hey?  Because judging by your 2nd quote below, you wouldn't have taken 'reasonable care to secure it from humans' or done 'everything expected of you'?:rolleyes:
I'm sorry if this seems nit picky, but I would contest with ANYONE that they 'know' their dogs 100%.  They are after all ANIMALS, and unless they have been in every single situation possible, I don't think you could say hand on heart you'd know how they would react - instinct is a funny thing - you could have a pretty educated guess for sure, but 100% - I'm not convinced....
Besides that, say you had done everything possible to 'protect' the intruder from a dog - what would the thought be if they hurt themselves on something else within your property? We gonna start wrapping rose bushes in cotton wool and the like?
This thread seems to be veering towards dogs that attack intruders, and from what I first read - that's not what was being asked....
Would the same apply if you'd done everything in your power, and the dog was stolen?  I'm sure there'd be cries of 'ah but I shouldn't HAVE to secure my dog so well in my OWN garden'...
similarly I think if you knew your dog was likely to bite an intruder you would be expected to take reasonable care over securing it from humans, even uninvited humans 

Isabel agrees   My dogs have never needed securing in this way 

We gonna start wrapping rose bushes in cotton wool and the like?

:D :D

I have had an intruder, a child, and just as I would have expected, my dog was nothing but gentle with her but I agree nobody knows 100% which is why I use terms like "likely to" or "expected".  People know their breeds, certain breeds are far more likely to guard, and people know their individuals and ought to take reasonable care taking that into account and I think the law expects that.  This is where reason comes in, wrapping rose bushes would probably not be regarded as reasonable :)
You may not like the idea of protecting intruders from harm but the law sees it differently for two reasons really 1. because the law is the proper agent for handing out appropriate punishment for crimes such as trespass not the property owner that is the only way of ensuring punishment is just and
2. because not all intruders have evil intent like the neighbour's little daughter who wanted to come in and have a closer look at my dog :)

>Would the same apply if you'd done everything in your power, and the dog was stolen?  I'm sure there'd be cries of 'ah but I shouldn't HAVE to secure my dog so well in my OWN garden'...

If I have done everything in my power I could not have done any more surely :)

I'll firstly address your comment that certain breeds are more likely to guard, and I think that's where the problem comes into play Isabel..
I may be wrong, but I feel you have real issues with certain breeds?
You're right the law DOES expect that - that is why there is a completely separate law for guard dogs.. but we're talking about pets here..
The rose bushes scenario - purely hypothetical, and yes, hands up slightly sarcastic - but not unreasonable in this 'blame' culture we're experiencing at present... believe me I know, part of my work/career covers H&S.
But your neighbours child still intruded?  Whether it be for evil intent or not is besides the point... they shouldn't be doing it! 

And finally, you're absolutely right - if you have done everything in your power to prevent someone from entering your garden and stealing your dog, then surely the same applies to doing everything in your power to prevent an intruder? 
i.e. having a 'normal' fence around your property, without having to cage or secure your animal and also deterring an intruder? 
If not, then surely it's getting to the point of going to extremes?  How secure does one have to be?
My own garden has one fence of approx. 6ft, and to either side of me the fences are maybe 4/5ft high.  If my dogs are in my garden I tend to be there with them, but not all of the time.  I have houses/gardens to the back of my garden and to the sides.  Yet I still have concerns that someone could come in and take my dogs - my husband calls me paranoid! lol
I have to admit, never once have I thought about an intruder entering the garden for other purposes.. too much trust in the human race I suspect!  BUT if someone DID enter my garden for dishonest reasons, I would argue to the nth degree that I had done everything possible to prevent it...
oh and I too would just 'expect' my dogs to lick their new garden mates to bits! 
I'm rambling now.. but I just didn't want this to turn into a dangerous dog type scenario!

>I may be wrong, but I feel you have real issues with certain breeds?

Depends what you mean by issues?  If you mean I think certain breeds should only be owned by people that understand them then yes, I do.

>You're right the law DOES expect that - that is why there is a completely separate law for guard dogs.. but we're talking about pets here..

Yes, there is a law covering commercial guard dog but as other posters have pointed out the law also obliges the private owner to take care.

>But your neighbours child still intruded?  Whether it be for evil intent or not is besides the point... they shouldn't be doing it! 

No, she shouldn't but she is a sweet thing who would not have harmed my dog so I don't particularly care that she did it :) (Or she was, she's a teenager now!)

>How secure does one have to be?

As I keep saying, the law expects you to take appropriate action.   So, if it seems likely that your dog might harm an intruder you need to go to greater lengths to prevent it or they may question why you didn't and you could be seen as negligent.

>BUT if someone DID enter my garden for dishonest reasons, I would argue to the nth degree that I had done everything possible to prevent it...
>oh and I too would just 'expect' my dogs to lick their new garden mates to bits!

Well, there you go you are unlikely to ever be looked at from the point of view of negligence :) and it is entirely up to you as to what lengths you wish to go to to stop your dog being stolen the law would not have a view on that.
You may not like the law taking this attitude and you may not like me pointing it out but that does not mean it is not the way it is as other posters than myself have pointed out, don't shoot the messenger and all that :)

Depends what you mean by issues?  If you mean I think certain breeds should only be owned by people that understand them then yes, I do.
not the impression I got reading through previous threads that you have replied on.  But then I guess that's a whole other topic!

No, she shouldn't but she is a sweet thing who would not have harmed my dog so I don't particularly care that she did it  (Or she was, she's a teenager now!)
that's very admirable that you don't care that she did it, its still intrusion and the same still applies - she was able to get over into your garden - didn't you do everthing within your power to prevent it?

As I keep saying, the law expects you to take appropriate action.   So, if it seems likely that your dog might harm an intruder you need to go to greater lengths to prevent it or they may question why you didn't and you could be seen as negligent.
And as I said, how do you know that it may be 'likely' that your dog might harm an intruder?  Or might not for that matter - again a whole other debate I think...

Well, there you go you are unlikely to ever be looked at from the point of view of negligence  and it is entirely up to you as to what lengths you wish to go to to stop your dog being stolen the law would not have a view on that.
that I'm sure, depends on what length someone does go to?  If someone goes to the extreme, i.e. barber wire on the fence to stop someone from stealing their dog, but then said intruder claimed they weren't there to steal the dog - only enter the property and relieve it of it's goods - then I'm sure the law would have a view on that?

I work for the largest law firm in the world.. I have absolutely no problem with the law taking this attitude, you pointing it out or indeed other posters opinions. :-)
I simply find certain responses interesting, and like to have jolly discussions. :-)
thank you for your time Isabel

>not the impression I got reading through previous threads that you have replied on.

>didn't you do everthing within your power to prevent it?

Why should I?

>If someone goes to the extreme, i.e. barber wire on the fence to stop someone from stealing their dog, but then said intruder claimed they weren't there to steal the dog - only enter the property and relieve it of it's goods - then I'm sure the law would have a view on that?

Yes, they would.

>I work for the largest law firm in the world.. I have absolutely no problem with the law taking this attitude, you pointing it out or indeed other posters opinions.

Then I have absolutely no idea what your posts are about :) 

didn't you do everthing within your power to prevent it?
Why should I?
Because you're telling everyone else to?  See below...

As I keep saying, the law expects you to take appropriate action.   So, if it seems likely that your dog might harm an intruder you need to go to greater lengths to prevent it or they may question why you didn't and you could be seen as negligent.

>I work for the largest law firm in the world.. I have absolutely no problem with the law taking this attitude, you pointing it out or indeed other posters opinions.
Then I have absolutely no idea what your posts are about
You may not like the law taking this attitude and you may not like me pointing it out but that does not mean it is not the way it is as other posters than myself have pointed out
You may well use the confused emoticon.. I am completely baffled by your responses too!
The reason I mentioned who I work for and the fact I have no problem with the law was in response to you saying and implying the I 'may' not like you pointing certain things out... any clearer?
My whole reason for posting, was not to confuse, but to simply try and highlight how ott certain personal safety, home security and the like could become....specifically when it causes such 'grey' areas whereby the 'intruder' could in turn sue the homeowner..
Anyway.. my advice to Maxine or her friend (can't remember who asked now!) would be to grow some particularly thorny bushes in areas where the perimeter fencing may be breached.  Under the advice of the thames valley police force.
thanks

>Because you're telling everyone else to?

You are not reading my posts properly.  I have said several times you do not need to do this if you reasonably feel that your dog would be no threat to an intruder.
I could not understand your next couple of sentences but I did understand this bit:-

>my advice to Maxine or her friend (can't remember who asked now!) would be to grow some particularly thorny bushes in areas where the perimeter fencing may be breached.

I think that is good advise and ties in with my comments that you might think of other methods if raising the fence was not feasable.

I am reading your posts properly Isabel.  Ok, so you may not be telling people to do everything possible to prevent intrusion, but you were implying it.
My point entirely being, you nor anyone else can say 100% how your dog would react should an intruder penetrate your property.  I feel that to be true. 
I find at hard to believe that you couldn't understand my next couple of sentences, just rather chose not to reply to them.  As I said I only mentioned my place of work in response to your comment that I may not like the law taking certain attitudes.  And as I said, have no problems with the law.

At least there is one thing that we do agree upon.  Reasonable protection of one's own property.  Thank you.

I am not implying anything I have repeated exactly what I am saying several times, no hidden meanings there :)

>My point entirely being, you nor anyone else can say 100% how your dog would react should an intruder penetrate your property.

I thought I had already done that one "I agree nobody knows 100% which is why I use terms like "likely to" or "expected""

>I find at hard to believe that you couldn't understand my next couple of sentences, just rather chose not to reply to them.

I'm afraid you will have to believe it.  If you want to have a go rewording it I will have another go at responding.

>At least there is one thing that we do agree upon.  Reasonable protection of one's own property.  Thank you.

Well no, actually, we don't agree on that ;) the law does not require you to take any reasonable protection of your own property if you do not wish to but it does require you to take reasonable care to avoid injury to other people even criminals.

You would probably find the intruder could sue you for hurting himself on your 'particularly thorny bushes' as well. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

probably! lol but if thames valley have it on their website, then it's good enough for me!  :-)

Highly unlikely, seeing that it's published police advice.

Planted Pyracantha under the front bedroom window of our bungalow soon after we moved here.  I keep it trimmed to the height of the windowsil and just over the width of the window.  The  only problem with it is that I have to be careful cleaning the window - ouch!

Lethal isn't it Cheryl?  I was pruning mine the other day and the thorns, oh boy! :P

Yes.  I trim it regularly so that the branches don't get too thick to tackle.  I love it and so do the birds. :)

I think it's 2 metres at the back and sides, and 1 metre at the front, at the boundary with the public footpath/road. Any higher at the front usually need planning permission. Local councils can have their own regulations.

aaah, wasn't sure.. thanks

Obviusly you cannot secure it in this way if not permitted to by planning etc :rolleyes: in which case, if you feel you have a dog that might harm an intruder, you may have to consider alternative means of securing him safely when unattended such as a secure run.

if you feel you have a dog that might harm an intruder,

Not quite sure how you'd know this until the situation arose

An owner would be expected to know their own dog. If their dog had ever snarled at a person, for example, then that would indicate that the dog might react aggressively towards an intruder.

I suppose you could take a chance but given that the law would frown on you if your dog did happen to savage someone, if I felt I did not know my dog I would err on the side of caution.

>....presumably you could counter-sue him for the damage he caused to your property ?

Of course.  He is still liable for his crime of breaking and entering.

HHHmmmm - now my dog doesnt like visitors to the house so I'm fairly sure he wouldnt be friendly to any intruder climbing over my 6ft fences - however - he would be extremely vocal in making his presence known before anybody got a leg over the top of the fence so my theory is any intruder would have plenty of opportunity to change their mind before my dog could get to them.  Being a small dog he wouldnt be able to get up to them...  they would have to completely ignore all the barking and growling and continue with their quest to enter my garden..  more fool them if they do would be my view - I'll just have to hope this is never put to the test. 

Maxine