http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165856/Dog-owner-Great-Dane-knocked-jogger-cleared-15k-damages.html

where do you sit with this?

hmmmmmmm.... I think the owner should have been responsible for his dog, it wasnt the joggers fault the dog jumped up at him. (cute picture though !!)

well, I think so to - but I think £15K plus £25K costs is completely over the top for an accident?

Way over the top! It's a victory for common sense, recognising that there was no malice intended and sometimes accidents happen.

I think the fact that said owner was an RSPCA guy went a long way to this appeal being accepted don't think the courts would be so kind to us mere mortals no matter how responsible we were.

I think you're right. But now a legal precedent has been set, that dogs and dog owners aren't automatically to blame, and compulsory lead laws are a step further away.

Think the end result correct but why did it cost £25000 legal costs, were the facts disputed, seems not so if it was just a matter of stating facts why the silly costs. Or was it one of these firms that advertise on the TV, well may be and they don't loose many because they only take on dead certs, IMO they are to blame for the ever higher legal costs.

I disagree , this dog who was not on a lead   caused this man to break his ankle thus causing pain , distress and inconvenience .
This is why dog owners should have third party insurance .

Jean Genie and Schip have both covered my take on this already :)

I think both people are at fault really.

If my dogs are running loose up the field and someone is running I will always make them stand and wait until the person has gone past.  I would also expect the same respect from someone jogging to slow to a walk when they go past my dogs.

Dogs love to run and play!

I usually walk my dogs with permission from the gamekeeper across our local shoot, and we keep an eye on things, so I would not expect to have a jogger running up behind me. At one point however there is a footpath and once a jogger came running up behind me. I could not hear him coming and he did not alert me to this fact. My dogs were off lead and walking as usual along this path at heel. When the older dogs realised something was approaching, (and they didn't him hear until the last minute), they sat as I have taught them to do. However on that day I had a very young dog with me who was for the most part steady, but as he ran past the jogger swore at the dogs and the young dog took this as a greeting and ran towards this man. Who turned round and said if I could not control my dogs I should F***ing well keep them at home, and if he ever saw me and my F***ing dogs again on the footpath he would tell the police that he had been attacked and that my F***ing dogs were out of control so I would be charged under the DDA. It was an upsetting experience. I later learned this jogger says this to every dog walker he sees whether the dog is on the lead or not.

What a horrid experience, poor you. I got threatened with legal action by a woman for having my dog off lead on a public footpath a while ago, she too was very nasty, and insisted that she was right, and would be reporting me to the police (Obviously this didn't concern me, but the abuse did). I think such people are probably mentally ill, and should be pitied.

I thought this was sensible I think because as good an owner as you can be a dog is not a machine, you can have them on the lead and your talking and they can just bolt off. Friendly animals well socialised can be as "dangerous" greeting people as vicious ones. I make my two sit whenever a car comes up the lanes near us (No pavements), when a young mum with a buggy comes up the pavement (bit narrow) but if they stop to "talk" to the dogs there so busy wagging and wiggling they could cause someone to fall over. I think that the judement errs on the side of an unknown element, the dog, as not being totally under control. Lets face it as well disciplined as they area they could inadvertantly cause an accident, you can trip over a pup! its not your fault and suing the pup is pointless.

> This is why dog owners should have third party insurance.

I'm inclined to agree, to be honest. Did the injured man end up with no compensation, or am I reading it incorrectly? Purely on a financial basis, he could be severely disadvantaged by this, particularly if he's a manual worker.

M.

Common sense...

If people wish to jog with out risk of meeting dogs/kids/cyclists/other human life - jog on a track.

Falling over and breaking your ankle is a fairly common risk of walking or jogging on grass/uneven terrain such as is found in parks, and meeting the other sectors of the public also legally entitled to use parks (inc dogs off lead) is also a fairly common thing.

So IF he is liable to lose out to the tune of 30K+ if he breaks an ankle, he ought perhaps not jog!

So IF he is liable to lose out to the tune of 30K+ if he breaks an ankle, he ought perhaps not jog!

quite right! joggers are the bain of my life! if a toddler crossed their path, would they not slow down for that? they are mostly rude and think they own the ground they jog on!

>So IF he is liable to lose out to the tune of 30K+ if he breaks an ankle, he ought perhaps not jog! >  :-D :-D

Quite right too, some joggers and cyclists seem to think they own footpaths! I am beginning to think that accidents are a thing of the past in this country - everyone is looking for compensation. Even on last night's 'apprentice', a dropped tomato slice was a 'health and safety risk' .

A victory for common sense.

At the park one time my OH got so excited playing fetch with the pup he didn't notice a band of joggers behind him on the path, he ended up throwing a large stick at them which both dogs then decided to chase. It looked pretty funny from where I was standing ( the other side of the lake:) ) but according to my boyfriend the jogges weren't pleased...