Just Labradors banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,427 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
You might enjoy this piece from Scotland:

Hurt dog walker's appeal rejected
A dog walker who was knocked down and injured by a black labrador has failed to convince appeal judges to award her £160,000 in damages.

Patricia Welsh, 56, needed surgery on her knee after the dog collided with her in Wellbank, Angus, in 2005.

She tried to sue the labrador's owner, Neil Brady, but a judge ruled against her as it was "a pure accident".

Mrs Welsh appealed but the new judges ruled that black labs were unlikely to cause serious injury or death.

'Unforeseen collision'

Former college lecturer Mrs Welsh was exercising her golden retriever, Cava, at a field near her home when the black lab called Ebony ran into her.

When she took the case to the Court of Session, the judge Lord Malcolm ruled against her and warned that courts must not contribute to "the creation of a society bent in litigation".

Lord Malcolm said: "In my view, what occurred was an unfortunate and unforeseen collision - it was a pure accident.

"If the law was to consider a labrador running in a field as something which is dangerous in itself, this would come close to making dog owners insurers in respect of all injuries and damage caused by their animals."

The appeal, heard by Lord Nimmo Smith, Lady Dorrian and Sir David Edward QC, was based on the liability of the keeper of an animal under the 1987 Animals (Scotland) Act.

The legislation provides that a person will be liable for injury or damage caused if the animal belongs to a species which is generally likely to seriously injure or kill or cause damage to property.

Fell short

Sir David said the question for the appeal judges became: "Are fully grown black labradors, by virtue of their physical attributes or habits, likely, unless controlled or restrained, to injure severely or kill persons or animals?"

Ebony, a labrador ***** who weighed 25kg, was described as large, lively and boisterous.

She was considered excitable but not aggressive, although she did not always respond to commands to return to her owner.

Sir David said that Mrs Welsh's counsel, Colin MacAulay QC, had "sought valiantly" to persuade them that there was evidence to show that labradors could be dangerous.

But he said the appeal judges considered it "fell far short" of what was required to meet the legal test and the appeal was rejected.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8142008.stm
 

·
Registered Users
Joined
·
10,466 Posts
Mrs Welsh appealed but the new judges ruled that black labs were unlikely to cause serious injury or death.
Sir David said the question for the appeal judges became: "Are fully grown black labradors, by virtue of their physical attributes or habits, likely, unless controlled or restrained, to injure severely or kill persons or animals?"
Interesting how they keep mentioning blacks. So yellows & chocolates are dangerous? :rolleyes:

What an idiot! Good to see some judges have some common sense. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,114 Posts
I think it's a stupid finding. Dog owners should be insurers of all damage and injury caused by their pet. Your pet, your responsibility.

Besides, do you really want judges choosing which breeds are dangerous and which breeds aren't? If a pit had run into her, would the conclusion have been different? The line of reasoning makes no sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,548 Posts
If my off-leash dog ran into someone and they had to have surgery, I would expect to have to pay the medical bills. That just seems common sense to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,307 Posts
I think it's a stupid finding. Dog owners should be insurers of all damage and injury caused by their pet. Your pet, your responsibility.

Besides, do you really want judges choosing which breeds are dangerous and which breeds aren't? If a pit had run into her, would the conclusion have been different? The line of reasoning makes no sense.
Gee! What I read here was a human and a dog were running. Neither was aiming at the other or intending injury. There was a collision. The victim got hurt. That is unfortunate, but accidents happen in where no one is at fault.

The dog did not jump, did not bite. I bet the dog tried to lick the lady when she fell. Time to get real. Gotta stop some of this senseless litigation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,548 Posts
Gee! What I read here was a human and a dog were running. Neither was aiming at the other or intending injury. There was a collision. The victim got hurt. That is unfortunate, but accidents happen in where no one is at fault.

The dog did not jump, did not bite. I bet the dog tried to lick the lady when she fell. Time to get real. Gotta stop some of this senseless litigation.
They admitted the dog didn't have a good recall. Shouldn't have been off-lead if it wasn't under the owner's control. I think the owner should have paid the victim's medical bills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,114 Posts
The dog did not jump, did not bite. I bet the dog tried to lick the lady when she fell. Time to get real. Gotta stop some of this senseless litigation.
You're right in that this was senseless litigation. The dog owner should have recognized his responsibility for an injury caused by his property and taken care of it without it ever going to court.

If your dog ran into a person who was just standing there minding their own business, knocking them down, and causing enough damage to require surgery, you wouldn't step up and take responsibility? If the answer is no, then that doesn't say much for you as a person.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top