The only 3 persons who know that it was your dog would be the injured woman and the other person and only then, if they saw it. I’m not certain how many people with there but the more who didn’t see it, the better
I cannot see how this son can possibly know what happened unless his mother has told him.
If the dog is not insured and you are not insured, then there is a potential claim against the person with the dog in negligence.
Moral of the tale: never do anything for anyone else unless you are insured or they are insured!
It will help if I explain how claims in negligence arise.
There needs to be
1. a duty of care
2. the duty of care needs to be breached
3. as a result of the breach there needs to be loss or injury
4. the loss or injury must be as a result of the breach
5. the loss or injury resulting from the breach must be reasonably foreseeable.
In order for there to be a claim in negligence, all 5 heads have to be satisfied.
If the dog was just generally running around, there is an argument which says that the person walking the dog was not in control of it. If however it was on the field and not on a lead and was just running around, then it’s possible that the person who fell over was not paying attention walking over dogs.
There is a claim here to be brought against whoever is responsible but the first argument is who was responsible because if this woman says it was your dog but there there is another person who said they were not sure which dog it was, then it’s more likely that her claim would fail.
There is no such thing as an accident any more. They are just called incidents. It happens because someone has been negligent. The thing speaks for itself because if no one had been negligent, no one would have fallen over and no one would have been injured.
The potential problem for the claimant is proving who had been negligent and even if it was established that it was your dog, then it is perfectly possible that there could be a claim for contributory negligence because this person shouldn’t have been doing what they did knowing that dogs were running around.
Are you liable here? Well in my opinion, you weren’t there, you had no duty of care in the circumstances and therefore you are out of the equation. The fact that it was your dog is neither here therefore is
I know you may not want to hear this but if there is a claim, it is is against your friend who was walking the dog who should have had control of it. Somewhat unfair, but that’s the situation.
Being quite honest with you, this is not a case that I would readily take on for the claimant with any hope of success but that doesn’t mean that an ambulance chasing solicitor will not jump on it and try to intimate a claim even though ultimately they would not go to court.
The size of the dog may be very relevant.
Can I clarify anything else for you?
I am happy to answer any specific points arising from this.
Please take a moment to look at the top right-hand corner of the page and rate my service by clicking one of the stars at the top of the screen.
You may need to login again to use the rating service. Although it says "rate to finish" it doesn't close the thread and we can still exchange emails.
It's important that you use the rating service because that gives me credit.
It doesn't just give me a pat on the head! It's what gets me paid!!
There is also an experts incentive scheme whereby the more 5 star ratings I get I do actually get a pat on the head!
All you need to do is press Submit.
If you still need any points clarifying, I will still reply because the thread does not close.