Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo P
As far as I can see IF Hutch decided to persue this through the courts it is a classic case of he said/she said - one persons word against anothers. There were no other witnesses to this woman admitting that her dog had shown previous aggression so all she has to do is deny saying it and it becomes a case of tit for tat - both dogs were off lead so neither would be classed as under control.
AMEN  |
I absolutely agree that pursuing this case in court would not be the best course of action for a number of reasons including those that you mentioned.
The information regarding the legal situation was only ever tendered on a theoretical basis – it would seem that Hutch6 asked out of curiosity in the first place as I am sure Hutch6 was not planning on taking the errant dog owner to court.
However I am curious about allot of members referring to the dogs being “under control” which as I understand from posts means on a lead. As far as I can see this has no effect on liability for negligence at all and since this is the action a person would peruse to obtain damages in the circumstances I don't see what part it could or would play.
Perhaps a knowledgeable member could clarify where this is comming from?
By the way for those looking for qualified advice perhaps you might like
Doglaw