Dog owner being sued for £5m after rider was thrown from horse

I've just started reading this thread but I have many questions.

I agree with all of the others who are saying have a good recall and put the dog on lead when one sees horses, livestock and such.

Could the dog owner be sued and if he loses lose his personal property? I know the rest of the world is less law suit happy than the USA, must be nice to have some common sense people and not just about dogs, but often a person's property, wages or bank accounts can be garnished if said person is uninsured. I think in some states home owners insurance would cover this, but I'm not sure. Mine does if something happens on my property.
 
Tiddlypom said:
The devil will be in the fine detail as heard in court this case, as in all court cases. This representation from the defence barrister is key, however.

For Mr Thomas, barrister Andrew Arentsen said there was no reason why Max should have been on his lead, since Druidston beach is regularly used by dog walkers to exercise their pets freely.

"It is precisely the type of location where dog owners can reasonably allow their dogs to run without restraint," he said.

So what is 'without restraint'? Off lead, for sure, as that is apparently permitted on that beach, but it should never mean 'not under control'.
Click to expand...
And what is 'reasonably'?
One might suppose that implies that the dogs can run without restraint but not interfere with other users of the beach, which this dog seems to have done
 
After finally reading all of this thread I've come to the conclusion that dog owners in the UK are as bad/stupid as those in the USA. My 2 have excellent recalls but if we get around people I put them on lead. Rudy is pretty reliable and the one time I forgot the leads in the car I took of my belt and used it as a leash for Freddie. Unfortunately most people just don't get it.

I hope this poor man wins.
 
canteron said:
Does anyone know the outcome of this case?
Click to expand...
I've just searched court records and can't find anything so don't think they've had a final hearing yet - the one reported was just an opening hearing and the full case was scheduled for a later date. There's currently a massive backlog in the courts which won't be helping. They also might have settled out of court.
 
Alibear said:
That said, this could lead to dogs only being able to run off lead in designated/paid dog parks or their gardens. Is that better welfare for the dogs? Then you get to cats :D
Click to expand...

Sounds like an excellent idea to me and with the number of dogs and the number of useless, irresponsible owners going up all the time, I wouldn't be surprised if something like this were to come into force in the future.

Off lead dogs may be allowed on this beach, but the law requires dogs to be "under control" at all times and if the dog was able to run under the horse, it was not under control. I will be interested to hear the outcome, I think it about time dog owners were given something to think about. I think it's a shame the injured rider is taking the stables to court, though.
 
cauda equina said:
And what is 'reasonably'?
One might suppose that implies that the dogs can run without restraint but not interfere with other users of the beach, which this dog seems to have done
Click to expand...

Also what would have happened if the dog had knocked over and injured a small child for example, that would be a case of an out of control dog. I cannot see how they think its acceptable to allow a dog to cause harm to others. Acceptable to be off lead sure, but ONLY if your dog has very good recall!!
 
I think the wording implying the dog was under control when running after horses is not ideal, as it could be taken to imply that the owner did this on purpose (I'm sure they didn't). If you could call your dog away from cantering horses, why wouldn't you?

I'd imagine the case won't be heard for a while- it takes a long time for anything to get through the courts at the moment.
 
stormox said:
Does anyone know what the outcome of this case was?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I was talking to a rider about this today. They thought that the rider had been unsuccessful in suing the stables so was going after the dog owner.

No idea if this is the case or not.
 
Amymay said:
Funnily enough I was talking to a rider about this today. They thought that the rider had been unsuccessful in suing the stables so was going after the dog owner.

No idea if this is the case or not.
Click to expand...
All I've found was that there was the pre-trial meeting around May last year snd that the trial would be "at a later date".
Nothing else is coming up so I assume the trial hasn't taken place yet.
 
Amymay said:
Funnily enough I was talking to a rider about this today. They thought that the rider had been unsuccessful in suing the stables so was going after the dog owner.

No idea if this is the case or not.
Click to expand...

I thought the stables settled out of court (they’ve now shut down, partly due to covid but there was a strong hint their overheads were just too high, I assume paying out a claim would push their insurance right up) but the rider was going after the dog owner as well.
 
Neither the dog owner or the trek leader were found liable.

Interesting that the court found that the buck caused the spinal injury and not the impact from the ground?

High Court Judgement

In concluding that the First Defendant had not breached his duty, the Court found that:

  • dog-walking off the lead was permitted and not uncommon on the beach;
  • the dog had no background of similar behaviour towards horses that might have prompted its owner to call the dog to heel and/or place him on a lead; and
  • the dog displayed only a mild interest in the horses on the beach and did not appear in any way as a threat to the horses.
In concluding that the Second Defendant was not liable in negligence, the Court found that:

  • the Claimant’s trek leader had not perceived the dog before the warning shout and was not negligent in failing to do so; and
  • consequently, the Claimant’s trek leader was not negligent in failing to adopt a different approach, such as by bringing the ride to a walk or choosing a different line as that decision was an exercise of judgement.
 
WrongLeg said:
Neither the dog owner or the trek leader were found liable.

Interesting that the court found that the buck caused the spinal injury and not the impact from the ground?

High Court Judgement

In concluding that the First Defendant had not breached his duty, the Court found that:

  • dog-walking off the lead was permitted and not uncommon on the beach;
  • the dog had no background of similar behaviour towards horses that might have prompted its owner to call the dog to heel and/or place him on a lead; and
  • the dog displayed only a mild interest in the horses on the beach and did not appear in any way as a threat to the horses.
In concluding that the Second Defendant was not liable in negligence, the Court found that:

  • the Claimant’s trek leader had not perceived the dog before the warning shout and was not negligent in failing to do so; and
  • consequently, the Claimant’s trek leader was not negligent in failing to adopt a different approach, such as by bringing the ride to a walk or choosing a different line as that decision was an exercise of judgement.
Click to expand...
How odd. That directly contradicts the details in OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top