Cyclist wins brain damage damages from dog-walker

[matticus]

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-left-brain-damaged-due-lead-dog-wins-case-278329

(It's been many days since the last dog-walkers vs cyclist rant thread, so here's a starter for discussion.)

 

[Cycleops]

I wondered when someone would bring this case up.
Its very interesting as cycling is prohibited on that route and the dog walker should have kept her dog under control. I was torn on this issue but if it were you who suffered brain injury as he claims then I think you might well choose the path of the complainant.
The judge considered the dog walker was at fault for not having her dog under control and on balance I think this was the right and fair judgement.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

It has been debated on the 'other' forum.

 

[Slick]

Not much to debate really especially if you didn't listen to all the evidence the way the judge did before finding the dog owner responsible.

 

[icowden]

Either way it's very poor reporting. LInes like this are sensationalist junk meant to make us feel sorry for the dog owner:

He could now receive as much as £50,000 in compensation from the dog’s owner, Carina Read, following the ruling at the Central London County Court, despite the defendant claiming that it was a “freak occurrence.”

Firstly the head injury has to be assessed and a certain amount of compensation for that will be requested. And yes it *could* be as much as £50,000, it *could* also be as little as £10,000. Until the injury is assessed and a claim built up, it's just plucking figures out of the air.

The next step is to calculate loss of earnings and costs to the cyclist. Those then get added on top and there is a lot of arguing for a number of years.
Lets say an amount is agreed and claimed for. The defendent can then make a case to the Court as to whether or not she has the ability to pay the compensation. If the lady in question is not wealthy then she may not end up having to pay anything or having to pay very small amounts., unless she is covered by some form of insurance.

So a better description is that "He could now receive an amount of compensation from the dog's owner."

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Not much to debate really especially if you didn't listen to all the evidence the way the judge did before finding the dog owner responsible.

Funny you should express that opinion

 

[Cycleops]

As far as I can make out it is simply a question of law. The dog owner should have controlled her dog regardless of whether the cyclist should have been there or not.
She was reported as being an investment banker so maybe not on the breadline.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

As far as I can make out it is simply a question of law. The dog owner should have controlled her dog regardless of whether the cyclist should have been there or not.
She was reported as being an investment banker so maybe not on the breadline.

Ealing Council encourages cycling and states it does not enforce the bylaw as a result. A regular visitor to the park says cycling is very much the norm there, so it's of little importance in the case.

 

[G3CWI]

She was reported as being an investment banker

Are you sure this was not a case of rhyming slang, common in those parts I think?

 

[Notafettler]

Either way it's very poor reporting. LInes like this are sensationalist junk meant to make us feel sorry for the dog owner:



Firstly the head injury has to be assessed and a certain amount of compensation for that will be requested. And yes it *could* be as much as £50,000, it *could* also be as little as £10,000. Until the injury is assessed and a claim built up, it's just plucking figures out of the air.

The next step is to calculate loss of earnings and costs to the cyclist. Those then get added on top and there is a lot of arguing for a number of years.
Lets say an amount is agreed and claimed for. The defendent can then make a case to the Court as to whether or not she has the ability to pay the compensation. If the lady in question is not wealthy then she may not end up having to pay anything or having to pay very small amounts., unless she is covered by some form of insurance.

So a better description is that "He could now receive an amount of compensation from the dog's owner."

If she has house insurance she will be covered under that.

 

[Notafettler]

QUOTE "After considering all the facts and evidence, I find that on the balance of probabilities, in failing to call back Felix, which she clearly had time to do, Ms Reid exposed Mr Crane to risk of injury,” the judge said."

The bit "in failing to call back Felix, which she clearly had time to do" makes her responsible.
She threw the ball, she saw the cyclist, she didn't call the dog back.

Guilty, hang her!

IF it was my dog I would have been able to stop her (the dog). But mine also has road sense and simply wouldn't have run in front of a bike. I suspect hers didn't have any road sense and she made no attempt to call the dog back.

Double guilty hang draw and quarter.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

If she has house insurance she will be covered under that.

On what basis?

 

[Notafettler]

House insurance normally includes personal liability. I assume it comes under building. There is a get out clause ie gross negligence as opposed to plain ordinary negligence.

 

[Mike Ayling]

As far as I can make out it is simply a question of law. The dog owner should have controlled her dog regardless of whether the cyclist should have been there or not.
She was reported as being an investment banker so maybe not on the breadline.

I thought that investment banker was rhyming slang?.

 

[Drago]

On what basis?

Many house insurance policies have quite a robust degree of public liability cover. Mine is with LV and it includes a public liability protection as standard.