Comments on: Flying Dog Injures Woman

By: Bock

Bock — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:01:23 +0000

I agree with you. It isn,t a right – wrong situaion. It's about apportioning the liability and in this case I think everyone contributed to the accident, not just Mr Ahmed.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:11:27 +0000

oh well, there you go, I did say I wasn't too hot on the law, although a policeman did tell me some time ago that in case of traffic accidents, ALL parties are supposed to be automatically charged with dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention or something like that. The charges can then be dropped or pursued depending on the seriousness of the accident, or whether the donuts were fresh or not, etc.

Anyway. I agree that the dog's owner could (and in my view perhaps should) have been charged with same, my OP was just to point out that perhaps there is not a right/wrong situation being discussed, more of a wrong/wrong. i.e, the dog should not have been free to roam across the road/jump in front of the car and the driver should have paid more attention when passing what was apparently a situation with the obvious potential for danger. That's all.

By: Bock

Bock — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:47:54 +0000

He would not have been charged as a matter of course. The gardai might equally well have charged the dog's owner with endangering traffic.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:45:25 +0000

Oops, guilty was the wrong word to use there, meant to say "liable" :(

But I still think the point stands, unless of course the situation was nothing like it was reported. And, I could be wrong, but when (if) the cops showed up, he would have been charged with dangerous driving as a matter of course and I suspect would have probably been found guilty of this, which would allow a civil suit to succeed whereas it otherwise would be hard to prove his negligence? Or have I got it all wrong, I'm not too hot on the law to be honest!

"Beware of airborne dogs" would be an awesome new road sign though.

By: Bock

Bock — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:27:50 +0000

He wasn't found guilty of anything. It was a civil case.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:41:47 +0000

Perhaps the details of the case are overshadowing the facts; the driver has a responsibility to take all necessary care and attention in order to avoid an accident…in this case he was made aware of a potentially dangerous situation (he is approaching some cars that are backed up; there is a person on the road indicating that dangers unknown are ahead and signalling him that he should be aware of this; he chooses to ignore the warnings and proceeds to overtake the cars whereupon he falls foul of a dog, who then falls foul of his vehicle, causing the plaintiff to fall foul of the dog.

I suspect, but can't say for sure that he was basically being found guilty of negligence and it is up to him to now file a counter-suit against the owner of the dog.

Let me put it this way; if it was a child that ran in front of the van, would we question this result?

By: Bock

Bock — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:59:58 +0000

Gerry – Cats and dogs are specifically excluded from that.

By: William

William — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:50:18 +0000

Will just break my word and reply to you on that Norma.It was quite bad.several different hunts some mounted and one foot pack, signs were ignored and as the land is some miles from my home it was difficult to confront them just arrive to find fences torn down and land plowed up,any that were confronted would claim the hounds had only" strayed" and behave in an arrogant manner.The attraction for them was a couple of acres of roughland that was left for wildlife there.Anyhow it was pretty appalling behaviour.

By: gerrryo

gerrryo — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:54:38 +0000

acording to the rules of the road. a driver approaching a person in charge of animals who gives a signal to slow down or stop must obey that signal. theres no distinction between different types of animals.

By: norma

norma — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:04:40 +0000

OK sorry, promise last post, William, genuinly sorry if you are experiencing difficulties with Hunt crossing your land without permission, I'm really out of touch but i know some Hunts have split so for landowners it' can be like double trouble, If you absolutly forbid them to enter, probably with a legal letter and signs saying no hunting, no trespassing, but maybe you have done all that, They must be a very disrespectful bunch, Maybe a letter to the IMFHA might help, Its a huge concern for Farmers with livestock, no Farmer can afford that kind of poaching on their land in this weather.
Also if it's of any use to you, don't know if it's drag or live inyour area, if it's drag then it's necessary to ask every farmer whose land they hope to cross for permission, if it's live and you have forbidden them entry then it's common practice for only the whip and maybe the huntsman to get hounds back, definitly not followers.
Things must have really changed, Would you try talking to some members of the local Hunt commitee in your area ? At one point I requested they contact me by letter to let me know when they were in my area to protect my own stock, they did but admittedly, i had to bring in all the stock, but they never crossed the land and were respectful, really sorry to hear that and I hope you have'nt sustained any losses.
Now i promise i'm done.