It's reassuring that there are still judges who believe in common sense. Accidents are nobody's fault and that the courts must not fuel the compensation culture.

Very sensible decision, was very surprised to read the claimant was also a fellow dog woner, one of a GR too.  Glad to judge has applied common sense to this case, if it had gone the other way the repercussions for future dog owners could have been terrible.

May be I won't sue myself then for when Merlot broke my knee in a mad dash to the front door to greet a visitor!! Sounds like I would loose !! ;) ;) ;)
Aileen

The wording of the ruling is interesting, basically a black labrador is not necessarily a danger, I wonder if the clumsy oaf in question had been my Dolly (a Rottie), whether the outcome would have been different.

I've had to have several physio sessions due to a rather enthusiastic recall response, she now just comes when it suits her!

What a ludicrous claim!

Tadsy, yes I agree might the outcome have been different, according to mis-perception of the breed.

The woman making the claim was one of my college tutors years ago and she didn't come across as being like the kind of person who would sue at any given opportunity.  An accident is an accident but many can be prevented - better recall training from the lab owner would have prevented this one.

> An accident is an accident but many can be prevented - better recall training from the lab owner would have prevented this one

still, silly to sue.

>An accident is an accident but many can be prevented

And many can't - a dog can knock someone over whilst recalling to the owner.

If a toddler bumped into you and caught you off-balance and you fell over, would you sue the parents? Of course not - the child meant no harm, and nor did this dog.

A dog walker I know - who incidentally has a Golden Retriever - was knocked over by a black labrador at the beach and she broke her leg in four places and spent months in plaster. She viewed it as an accident and spent many weeks reassuring the owner of the labrador that neither he nor his dog was in any danger of being taken to court by her. The labrador was running along the beach towards the lady's GR and was recalled by his owner - he turned very quickly and ran straight into the woman's leg knocking her over and she fell awkwardly.

We dog owners are used to being battered and bruised :p. I can't even count the times I got injured.

A  young Collie I fostered collided with my legs at full speed as he ran past me and dislocated my knee cap. I fell down in a heap, unable to move and had to wait til someone came past to call an ambulance as this was before the days of mobile phones. He never meant any harm though and jumped all over me while I was on the floor to see if I was alright.

A Great recall won't always help, I've been knocked back by recalls of my own dogs and also general running.  I'm pretty sturdy so haven't been knocked over and fall but they push me off my balance often just the shere speed they run towards me and last second dodge out the way, sometimes not just enough!

At least this judge saw sense :)  but would the outcome still have been the same if the dog knocked over a child?  Or what about a non dog person?

A Great recall won't always help, I've been knocked back by recalls of my own dogs and also general running.  I'm pretty sturdy so haven't been knocked over and fall but they push me off my balance often just the shere speed they run towards me and last second dodge out the way, sometimes not just enough!

At least this judge saw sense :)  but would the outcome still have been the same if the dog knocked over a child?  Or what about a non dog person?

My Ollie knocked me unconcious, and gave me a concussion.. an over zealous, over friendly Labrador :-O

It is quite frightening to think of the damage a dog can do without malice...

I think many of us have had our fair share of boisterous young dogs bumping into us, jumping up at us and knocking us flying I know I have, none have been my own, but all is forgiven as they are generally young and at that stage when they don't do as they are told, ideally at this age they should be on a long line to prevent these things happening. I even once had a Staffie type dog saying hi to the family dogs and then out of nowhere it jumped right up to my eye at full force, (and I'm not short :-D) licked it and I had to do the rest of the walk with an eye in pain. These things happen.

I don't agree at all in suing people because their dog has knocked into you, however I can kind of understand why this woman has done it, if she needed to be taken to hospital and is now unable to work, how does she earn a living? Most insurances cover 3rd party accidents, this was an accident but perhaps she should have had some compensation via an insurance company to cover things like this, I take it this particular dog did not have insurance of this type hence her going to court.

People today sue for all sorts, insruance claims are through the roof, most are totally ridiculous, the judge is right to say the courts should not fuel compensation, however in this case as she is permanently injured, I feel for the woman, I do feel she was entitled to some sort of insurance claim due to her now being incapacitated, people sue for much less, I think they went about it in the wrong way in trying to say the lab was dangerous, but I can understand why she took it to court.

>ideally at this age they should be on a long line to prevent these things happening.

A long line getting wrapped around your legs is going to be worse than an exuberant happy friendly dog bouncing loose around you!

>> ideally at this age they should be on a long line to prevent these things happening.
> A long line getting wrapped around your legs is going to be worse than an exuberant happy friendly dog bouncing loose around you!

so what do you suggest JG?  You have said that even a dog with good recall can injure and now attempting to risk manage bouncy dogs is dangerous.  the difference between the long line getting wrapped round your legs and an untrained dog knocking someone else over and leaving them unable to work is that it is your choice to have a dog, not to train it or to put a long line on it.  But the lady who was knocked over by someone else's untrained bouncy dog did not have that choice.

FWIW I don't think she should have sued but the point I was making is that many accidents can be prevented - this is why we train our dogs, put them on short leads at the roadside and when street walking, don't leave dogs alone with babies and small children etc etc.

> My Ollie knocked me unconcious, and gave me a concussion.. an over zealous, over friendly Labrador :-o
>

Why does that not surprise me?  ;-)

> so what do you suggest JG?  You have said that even a dog with good recall can injure and now attempting to risk manage bouncy dogs is dangerous.  the difference between the long line getting wrapped round your legs and an untrained dog knocking someone else over and leaving them unable to work is that it is your choice to have a dog, not to train it or to put a long line on it.  But the lady who was knocked over by someone else's untrained bouncy dog did not have that choice.

From reading all of the article, it does not seem that the accident happened due to an 'untrained, bouncy dog', just a dog responding to a recall and ACCIDENTLY knocking the persons knee. No lack of manners, or OTT greeting from the dog, just mis-judgement in stopping.

This is the sort of thing that happens to a lot of dog owners from thier own dogs, but unfortunately must have caught the womans knee at the wrong angle. I don't think those people who responsibly let thier dogs off-lead, should be keeping thier dogs on-lead to prevent this type of freak accident, all dogs would have to be on the lead 100% of the time in public to prevent things like this happening.

"The court heard that Mrs Welsh and Mr Brady, who live in the same village, were both out walking their dogs and the animals were running together in a field. When Mrs Welsh called her dog they both ran towards her and Ebony struck her on the inside of the knee."

>so what do you suggest JG?

Accept that ultimately our priority is our own safety. I don't know about you, but I reckon I'm too important to leave my personal safety to other people. If I get it wrong then it's my fault. If there are dogs bouncing around I look out - I know what might happen. If I didn't accept that then I'd stay at home.

One of my friends has a GR and it just rushes around going daft as soon as it meets my two GRs.
My two are fine and quite sensible now but i have to watch the other one all the time as he just ploughs into you,and he is a big boy.
My friend finds it quite funny but i dont.....and have told her but it didnt seem to sink in.
I do think people need to take responsabilty for their dogs when out walking.
The dog does not do it intentionally,just in his happy mode....but that can be dangerous and injure someone,and that person could loose everything through someone elses negligence of being unable to control their dog.

>the difference between the long line getting wrapped round your legs and an untrained dog knocking someone else over

I was more concerned about the risk of the long line getting wrapped around the other person's legs, not my own! Another hazard for the person to watch out for; in this instance if the lab had been on a long line then the lady could have been tripped up or had a nasty friction burn from the line.

>> From reading all of the article, it does not seem that the accident happened due to an 'untrained, bouncy dog', just a dog responding to a recall and ACCIDENTLY knocking the persons knee. No lack of manners, or OTT greeting from the dog, just mis-judgement in stopping.

Hi Mastifflover, the full story was in my local paper (the area the incident took place) although they haven't put it online and there was a lot of talk about the dog being untrained and bouncy.  Below is some quotes from the hearing that appeared in another media report of the case -

Patricia described Ebony as "very friendly, very excitable and boisterous - a dog which didn't always respond to commands and just ran where it wanted".  She claimed the Labrador was known in the local area to be "hyper" and had a tendency to jump up on people.  She accused Neil of failing to keep the dog under control. She said it ignored his commands and told the court that his wife always kept it on a lead when she walked it.
Patricia insisted her own dog was well trained after two years of obedience classes.

A slightly different perspective?

I was more concerned about the risk of the long line getting wrapped around the other person's legs

Training lines have always been a must for training adolescents for myself, personally I've never once had a training line get wrapped around my own legs or a passer by the whole reason for them is to keep a dog under control when at it's boisterous stage, giving it enough rope to have a good trot, but stopping it from running up to people and other dogs if need be, whilst continuing to teach commands and practice recall, if the trainer/owner is allowing a dog to do as it pleases on a long line it is not being trained properly and the line is completely pointless. Adolescent dogs are best trained on a long line for their own safety and others around them, those who don't use them risk things like this happening.

>Training lines have always been a must for training adolescents for myself

In 30+ years of multiple dog ownership I've never found a need for a long line.

no cheekybow, same view. So what? whenever I have dogs running around me however size they are I make sure I slightly bend my knees in case of impact, common sense I believe? Injuries like this are so common! She saw it as a little cash possibility.

What bothers me here immensely is the judge's view of the labrador as a non-dengerous breed, so she couldnt have meant it! As if to say if the dog who caused the injury had been a rotty, a gsd or godforbid the awful monster the "staffie" then the outcome would have been different? As if to say if they did it then they must have meant to hurt the woman?
What an ignorant judge! An accident is an accident and labs are more clumsy then others and more boisterous and energetic then others. Only because they are fav of the middle classes they get away with it? Bleemin ignorant!

The fact that she wasn't trained properly doesn't have much to do with that. If she was being called and refused to listen, run on a road and collide with a passer by or cause an accident then it would be different. Where is she? In a park where she gets to run and be a dog. If you call your dog back when he is playing expect the dog he's playing with to come along, he does't know you have interruped the game!

> Patricia described Ebony as "very friendly, very excitable and boisterous - a dog which didn't always respond to commands and just ran where it wanted".  She claimed the Labrador was known in the local area to be "hyper" and had a tendency to jump up on people.  She accused Neil of failing to keep the dog under control. She said it ignored his commands and told the court that his wife always kept it on a lead when she walked it.
> Patricia insisted her own dog was well trained after two years of obedience classes.
>
> A slightly different perspective?

No, I don't think it is a different perspective, that is just the talking about the dogs temperment, not what happened to the womans leg. The accounts of the actual event state:
"Mrs Welsh called her dog they both ran towards her and Ebony struck her on the inside of the knee." It doesn't say the dog jumped up at her or was behaving in a boisterous manner. The fact that the dog is known to be boisterous, I don't think (and obviously neither does the judge) has anything to do with an accidental collision. A slight shift in positions of the dogs and it could have been her own dog that caused the damage - would she try to sue herself for having an out of control dog?

Buster is boisterous, but when he nearly knocks me off my feet by walking into the back of my legs because he isn't looking where he is going, it has nothing to do with boisterous behaviour, it is clumsyness, and no ammount of training is going to make any dog 100% reliable agaisnt accidentally colliding with anybody or anything. Just as people can accidentally trip or bump into other peolpe.

I am fed up with the growing suing trend and am very pleased with the judges ruling in this case. Accidents happen and sadly sometimes it changes peoples lives, but it seems like now-a-days most people want to blame it on other people and get money for it :(

>Accidents happen and sadly sometimes it changes peoples lives, but it seems like now-a-days most people want to blame it on other people and get money for it 

I think this ruling shows that, if receiving money after an accident is vital, then people should take out their own personal accident insurance policy. Then if something like this happens and they can't work they have their insurance to cover them. To assume someone else will pay is irresponsible IMO.