Dogs and the law...and idiot owners.

[eugene molloy]

Lads, When I posted the piece below on the wildfowling forum, several people challenged my view on the Law. Does any (IE COLUMBA PALUMBA!) have chapter and verse? My correspondents were in Scotland.

 

In the UK it’s a requirement in Law to have dogs collared complete with an ID tag, and to be kept under proper control when in public places. This is usually taken to mean being on a lead. In a crowded island full of traffic, who can argue much against these simple rules?

 

Well for one, presumably, the silly **** who let his Alsatian cross run off the local common in front of me this morning; no lead, no collar, no control. It’s a busy, narrow road, and there was a lot of traffic moving both ways; someone could easily have been killed. Even as I was helping him get the animal into his car (didn’t know how to pick up an injured beast) his second Alsatian was running around loose; no lead no collar, no control.

 

Results of not observing a reasonable Law; one very seriously injured dog (apparently paralysed) him and his wife very distressed, me shook up, and eight hundred and fifty quids worth of insurance claim on my 9 month old motor.

 

Regards

Eug

[philapper]

Get a solicitor on the case and don't forget the Psychological effects of this incident on yourself and or passenger. you could even throw in a bit of whip lash for good measure. I think you may be in for a new gun!!!!

[lurcherboy]

Its a legal requirement for a dog to be restrained/lead blah,blah,blah on a public highway. :yp:

[Guest Mr Pieman]

I think the dog has to be 'kept under control'. I don't think there is a specific requirement for this control to be in the form of a lead though

 

We might need a doggy law guru for the definitive answer!!

 

Cheers :yp:

 

PP

[Hammergun]

I think your insurance company should be able to claim damages from the dog's owner as the dog was not under control at the time.

 

You should check up with a legal expert.

[Wookie]

Dogs are classed as property, so if you hit it, then you _should_ be able to claim off their insurance because you hit their property.

 

The fact that the dog was not under control, means that they are at fault. Get a solicitor on the case.

 

Wookie

[Fisherman Mike]

Eug...

 

This happened to me several years ago.. I killed the dog unfortunately a lovely

Black lab.

 

The dog had "no form of identification apparent or form of restraint exercised in close proximity to a busy highway"

 

Those were the words used by my solicitor.

 

The owner of the dog who was a complete pillock and obviously of sub human intelligence tried to take proceedings through my motor insurance company for careless driving. I took the precaution of informing the police of the accident and also solicited witness acounts from the two people behind me.

 

My insurance company successfully defended this and we counterclaimed on his pet insurance third party liability which came to light when he tried to pursue a claim for the dogs demise.

 

His pet insurance paid for the damage to my car but not for the death of his dog has he had failed to keep his dog under control in this particular area thus negating the terms and conditions of his insurance.

 

The damage to my car although annoying was not the issue, but that poor dog did not need to die because of the careless fault of his owner. He let the poor dog down and should not have been allowed to replace it.

 

FM.