Dog attacks when both parties are on leads

A

AshTay

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 September 2010
Messages
953
Location
East Mids
Visit site
Just need some advice.
A friend was walking their 2 dogs, they're not good with other dogs and are never let off the lead and are kept at a safe distance from other dogs on leads. The owner stopped to pick up a poop so his back was turned and he was crouched down (the dogs were still on leads) and whilst he was doing this, another owner walked his dog (on a lead) right up to them to go past and they all ended up in a fight but of course it was 2 on 1 so the lone dog came off a lot worse. The other dog was taken to the vets and now the owner of the injured dog wants the other owner to pay the vets fees.

Do they have to? Who is legally to blame in this case?
 
I don't think there's a law on dogs attacking anything apart from livestock, so I would guess legally they don't have to pay anything. I guess the only argument could be that if the dogs were known to attack they should have been muzzled. I hate it when other dog owners stroll over with their doh and say "oh fluffy, go say hello!" My dogs are friendly but I don't like strange dogs near them.
 
I'm not sure about legalities so not much help but if your friend was stationary/had her dogs at a safe distance, can it be proven etc, that the man essentially walked into her?

I guess the argument could be that if her dogs aren't 100%, sometimes situations where you are in close proximity are unvoidable and such, could they argue her dogs should be muzzled?

Not being horrible there, by the way. I have a dog that went through a bit of a fear aggression/nipping personality transplant, as he got older, and now has to be muzzled as he's now unpredictable with some other dogs and people... :-/
 
Will be interested in this one as I'm due to try to help a friend whose dog is too protective of her when on a lead but I'll start another thread about that so as not to hijack this one.

Personally, while I accept the other person was wrong to walk so close to dogs they didn't know, I think muzzles should have been used in public simply so this sort of accident couldn't have happened; no owner can have eyes in the back of their head the whole time. As it's so 50:50, I'd be willing to share the cost of the vet simply because their dogs should not have reacted the way they did, it was unacceptable and as the owner you have to take the blame for 'allowing' it by not having them muzzled.
 
Hmm, when our great danes (2) attacked our neighbours dog they were pretty adamant that they could force us to pay vets bill (not needed) and get a destruction order if it reoccurred. Actually we would have been quite happy to pay the bill and accepted full responsibility for our own failings here.

We subsequently muzzled the dogs but became nervous of taking them out and they became pretty much homebound (lots of ground though). If it were me and my dogs I think I'd pay up tbh.
 
Law states you must be in control of your dog in a public place at all times....whether on a lead or not.
Owner of the two dogs might find the other person has a case.
 
I would say its the owner of the 2 dogs that should pay as they have the 'dangerous' dogs.

Hope that makes sense and doesn't offend, I've just woke up and can hardly string a sentence together!
 
joeanne said:
Law states you must be in control of your dog in a public place at all times....whether on a lead or not.
Owner of the two dogs might find the other person has a case.
Click to expand...

This was my understanding also. Often a loose dog running onto a dog on the lead is looked on less favorably as it is easier to show they would not have been under control. The lead shows it is more likely for a dog to have been under control. So it is not the actual lead that dictates it rather it is an indicator. Where both dogs are on a lead things are less clear. Some of the rescues I have known insist a dog with nervous aggression / aggressive tendencies is muzzled in a public place as part of the re-homing agreement. However I do not allow my dog to go near any other dogs on a lead or not unless the owners say that they are happy to mix, I assume they are not friendly until proven otherwise. You could argue both parties have not been as careful as they reasonably could be, whether there is any assured legal recourse is less clear than perhaps the ethical standpoint. If my dog had caused injuries I would offer to pay, I chose not to muzzle knowing the dog was unpredictable.
 
I think to have a good conscience they should at least offer to pay half mine is not good with other dogs he is muzzled due to other owners being idiots and letting their precious darlings run up to him ( he likes to gobble them up in one) so they generally would come off worse saying that I do give a warning when other dogs come upto him along the lines of please get your dog mine is not good I have been known to take muzzle off if another dog attacks him and owner does not intervene after first request and have yet to be billed for vet care.
 
To be honest if my dogs were aggressive enough to injure another dog enough so that it needs vet bills I would muzzle them in public. You can complain about the other owner's negligence as much as you like but even if everyone's dogs were perfectly trained, accidents do happen. My friend's excellently trained dog was attacked because the postman left the garden gate open, he wandered into the lane and went up to an unfriendly dog on a lead.

I'm not saying that the other owner was right, I'm just making the point that you cannot account for everything and that your friend should probably now muzzle her dogs to stop this happening again. I think the other owner has a decent case given the gravity of the aggression.
 
If a dog is known to be aggressive whether on a lead or not I believe it should be muzzled when out in public, what if has been a child running over to stroke the dog? The owner of the attacking digs should offer to pay vets bills
 
miss_wilson said:
If a dog is known to be aggressive whether on a lead or not I believe it should be muzzled when out in public, what if has been a child running over to stroke the dog? The owner of the attacking digs should offer to pay vets bills
Click to expand...

My friend has agreed to pay the full vets bill even though she believes both parties should share the blame.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to say "what if it had been a child?". The dogs referred to in my original post are totally fine with people: adults and children. In fact, if I said what breed they are, most people would be surprised that they did what they did (but those in the know wouldn't....)!!!

But not all dogs are fine with children and children should be taught not to approach unknown dogs in the same way that owners shouldn't walk their dogs right into a pair of unknown dogs!!! Though I do think that dogs that are known to be aggressive towards PEOPLE (adults or children) should always be muzzled when out.
 
AshTay said:
My friend has agreed to pay the full vets bill even though she believes both parties should share the blame.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to say "what if it had been a child?". The dogs referred to in my original post are totally fine with people: adults and children. In fact, if I said what breed they are, most people would be surprised that they did what they did (but those in the know wouldn't....)!!!

But not all dogs are fine with children and children should be taught not to approach unknown dogs in the same way that owners shouldn't walk their dogs right into a pair of unknown dogs!!! Though I do think that dogs that are known to be aggressive towards PEOPLE (adults or children) should always be muzzled when out.
Click to expand...

It really makes me cross when people suggest that a dog which is untrustworthy with other dogs (or cats etc) is therefore a risk to people. In my experience there's no connection.
 
When you say that their dog came off worst, what that suggests to me is that the other dog was fighting/biting too, would they have paid if your dogs needed vetinary protection? Which dogs actually instigated it? Was his dog 'under control' in that he could not get it away when the aggression occurred?

All that said, if it were your dogs that went for it and they have injured it I would stump up the fees (within reason). I have no idea about the legalities.
 
Well i have no idea of legal standing. But that's why i have public liability for my dog even thought he is super friendly tho.
But if he did attack another dog i would want to pay or at least half of the bill.
Presuming was a foot path not field so limited space to pass?
 
AshTay said:
Just need some advice.
A friend was walking their 2 dogs, they're not good with other dogs and are never let off the lead and are kept at a safe distance from other dogs on leads. The owner stopped to pick up a poop so his back was turned and he was crouched down (the dogs were still on leads) and whilst he was doing this, another owner walked his dog (on a lead) right up to them to go past and they all ended up in a fight but of course it was 2 on 1 so the lone dog came off a lot worse. The other dog was taken to the vets and now the owner of the injured dog wants the other owner to pay the vets fees.

Do they have to? Who is legally to blame in this case?
Click to expand...

If they have a known history then he is entirely to blame. The dogs should be muzzled.
I wouldn't expect to walk a wide berth around someone simply because they have dogs.

HTML: 
https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview

Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:

injures someone
makes someone worried that it might injure them

A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if:

it injures someone’s animal
the owner of the animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal
Click to expand...
 
FionaM12 said:
It really makes me cross when people suggest that a dog which is untrustworthy with other dogs (or cats etc) is therefore a risk to people. In my experience there's no connection.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I also think a lot of people create a problem with their dogs where there isn't one - my big dog didn't like other big male dogs that followed him too closely sniffing his bum, he was never snappy until one day a dog followed him for ages then mounted him :o My dog turned around and snapped at the other dog, (didn't make contact and didn't continue to be agressive after that one growly snap) the owner of the other dog was horrible to me and I felt awful. After that I got really nervous whenever I saw a male dog go anywhere near my dog and as a result he ended up with a huge complex that took months of training (both him and me :rolleyes:) to work through. If I had just had the common sense to realise that a growly snap is an acceptable response to being mounted without consent then there wouldn't have been a problem!
 
Batgirl said:
When you say that their dog came off worst, what that suggests to me is that the other dog was fighting/biting too, would they have paid if your dogs needed vetinary protection? Which dogs actually instigated it? Was his dog 'under control' in that he could not get it away when the aggression occurred?

All that said, if it were your dogs that went for it and they have injured it I would stump up the fees (within reason). I have no idea about the legalities.
Click to expand...

They don't know who went for who first. The two dogs were a lot bigger than the other dog and would have got the better of it very quickly but no one (either owner) seems to be able to say whether the other dog was casually walking past and was jumped on or whether it steamed into them. One owner was stooped down picking up poo and the other seemed to be oblivious to this so probably wasn't looking at all.
The other owner couldn't get his dog away after it started because the other two dogs were on him. The owners all waded in and dragged the bigger dogs off.
 
OP from what you have said the owner of the 2 dogs was otherwise occupied so was not in full control of his dogs. I would pay up purely from a moral standpoint and not wish to have my dogs investigated further if I contested it. In an ideal world no one would walk up to 2 dogs on a lead without expecting consequences but there are a lot of idiots out there and you have to be prepared. I would also walk elsewhere in future where I was not likely to meet other dogs, if this is not possible they would be muzzled in order that history dosnt repeat itself.


Imagine if this had been a child that had gone up to the dogs and had been bitten(Im not saying your dogs are people aggressive) the owner would have been considered to be at blame because his dogs were not under control.
 
PandorasJar said:
If they have a known history then he is entirely to blame. The dogs should be muzzled.
I wouldn't expect to walk a wide berth around someone simply because they have dogs.
Click to expand...

No one would expect you to. The dogs are fine with people. And the owner would usually be the one giving a wide berth to other dogs knowing how their dogs can be, but in this instance, the owner was crouched down picking up poo and the other owner walked straight into them.

If a horse out hacking in front of you stopped for a poo would you continue to ride/walk right up behind it on the grounds that you shouldn't be expected to make allowances for other people if they're in a vulnerable position???!!!!

As I said before, I don't know the legalities of the situation. Apparently the dogs are muzzled in open spaces where there might be dogs off the lead because it seems 90% of owners have little to no recall over their loose dogs but on the pavement on their housing estate, dogs are rarely ever loose so the dogs get some muzzle-free time to sniff and be dogs.
 
Its almost six of one and half a dozen of the other but I think the blame probably does fall slightly on your friends side

I always poop scoop with the dog on a short lead, I make him sit and face me so I am in control at all times, maybe something to think about in future
 
lady_annabelle said:
I think to have a good conscience they should at least offer to pay half mine is not good with other dogs he is muzzled due to other owners being idiots and letting their precious darlings run up to him ( he likes to gobble them up in one) so they generally would come off worse saying that I do give a warning when other dogs come upto him along the lines of please get your dog mine is not good I have been known to take muzzle off if another dog attacks him and owner does not intervene after first request and have yet to be billed for vet care.
Click to expand...

That (unless I've skipped it) is a crucial bit missing in this case. If both were on a footpath I would expect my dog to walk by at close proximity without any problem. If in a large field mine hared over and got attacked it would be slightly different. Legally with history dangerous dogs should still be muzzled, equally loose dog should be able to call off instantly.

Additionally in this case the owner of the attacked dog couldn't call off dog as was under two other dogs. Not his problem, that's the problem of the owner with the two dogs.
 
AshTay said:
No one would expect you to. The dogs are fine with people. And the owner would usually be the one giving a wide berth to other dogs knowing how their dogs can be, but in this instance, the owner was crouched down picking up poo and the other owner walked straight into them.

If a horse out hacking in front of you stopped for a poo would you continue to ride/walk right up behind it on the grounds that you shouldn't be expected to make allowances for other people if they're in a vulnerable position???!!!!
Click to expand...

Again. Where? On a foothpath I'd be pretty damn peed off waiting for someone who is not in control of their dogs to poo pick so mine could walk past!

Nothing to do with this. A horse is an entirely different animal with entirely different situations. I don't know about you but I wouldn't let my horse loose to run around with other horses in public ;)
 
I'm afraid I would not pay, why did the other dog owner not keep their distance? I would have done if I'd been them and presumably so would your friend in the same situation...... The dogs were on a lead for a very good reason.

Perhaps in future I would muzzle them if I had to take them out in a public place in future though. Seems to me it was entirely the fault of the person with the injured dog.
 
AshTay said:
...

...but on the pavement on their housing estate, dogs are rarely ever loose so the dogs get some muzzle-free time to sniff and be dogs.
Click to expand...

So they were on a pavement? I wouldn't expect to have to step into the road to pass someone, although I would position myself between my dog and the other dogs.

When scooping, I get my dog to sit if I'm on my own and therefore have no one to hold him for me, so I know he's not making a nuisance of himself to passers by. I think that the owner needs to make sure they are fully aware of their surroundings at all times if the dogs are as volatile as they sound.
 
PandorasJar said:
Again. Where? On a foothpath I'd be pretty damn peed off waiting for someone who is not in control of their dogs to poo pick so mine could walk past!

Nothing to do with this. A horse is an entirely different animal with entirely different situations. I don't know about you but I wouldn't let my horse loose to run around with other horses in public ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where it happened other than on a footpath on a housing estate. The dogs were on short leads and weren't "out of control" - the other dog was walked INTO the dogs on leads. It's not like the other owner would have had to go more than a few feet out of his way or waited more than a few seconds to avoid them. I take it you don't have a dog. It usually takes all of about 20 seconds to pick up a poo. Is 20 seconds too much to ask? (If a few seconds wait makes you "damn peed off" you must have serious anger issues!!! Do you elbow past old people and pushchairs boarding the bus too???).
And the horse example is relevant. It's about good manners when out in public and not believing that the rest of the world revolves around you!!!

This was an unfortunate incident which could have been avoided had the other owner paused or given a slightly wider berth (they came out of an alleyway behind the crouched owner apparently so she didn't see him while mid-scoop). But I wasn't there so don't know full picture. It could also have been avoided if the 2 dogs were muzzled but as I mentioned in other post - the housing estate was felt safe enough not to need to....
 
OP what is the breed of these 2 dogs?, I have 2 Dobes who are very good but Im fully aware how the general numpty public perceive them, they have to be whiter that white as far as Im concerned. I dont want anyone pointing a finger and accusing them of anything so Im fully aware of my responsibilities , I also have public liabilty Insurance.

If something like this happened to me I would pay, I dont want the dog warden knocking on my door, I dont want my dogs to have a history and this is what will happen to your friend if they dont pay up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top