- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Acton Green Common (via GoogleStreetView).PNGCyclist left with brain injuries when dog ran into his path wins court case
A cyclist who suffered brain injuries when a dog chasing a ball ran in front of him has won a court case against the animal’s owner.
David Crane, aged 70, was thrown over the handlebars of his bike as he tried to avoid the cocker spaniel named Felix on Acton Green Common in West London in March 2016, reports Mail Online.
> Cyclist injured in crash with dog chasing ball sues owner for £50,000
He could now receive as much as £50,000 in compensation from the dog’s owner, Carina Read, following the ruling at the Central London County Court, despite the defendant claiming that it was a “freak occurrence.”
The publishing executive had sued Ms Read for negligence as well as under the Animals Act 1971.
Judge Patrick Andrews refuted Ms Read’s defence that since her dog was not “dangerous,” it was not subject to the provisions of the act, and said that she should have restrained it.
The act provides, among other things, that where an animal that does not belong to a dangerous species causes damage or injury, its keeper may be held liable for injury or damage.
“After considering all the facts and evidence, I find that on the balance of probabilities, in failing to call back Felix, which she clearly had time to do, Ms Reid exposed Mr Crane to risk of injury,” the judge said.
Mr Crane, who was riding to work when the crash happened, had said in evidence: “The first time I was aware of the dog was when it was right in front of me.”
He sustained what his lawyer told the court was a “not insignificant brain injury,” which has affected his concentration, hearing and memory, as well as his senses of taste and smell.
Ms Read’s barrister, Nigel Lewers, had insisted that his client believed the path was clear when she threw the ball for Felix, and that it had bounced off his head.
“At that point, she became aware of Mr Crane cycling at speed with his head down,” although the plaintiff insisted that he was riding at no more than 5mph.
“She tried to warn him, but Felix chased the ball across the path and was struck by the front wheel of the bicycle,” Mr Lewers continued.
“She was doing what she and no doubt many others had done in the same or similar areas of the common – throwing a ball for her dog down an open strip of grass and not in the direction of the path.”
But Judge Andrews said that Ms Read should have restrained her dog, adding, that Mr Crane “had no time to take any evasive action when Felix ran across his path.”
Damages will be set at a future hearing.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 6 hours 31 min ago
There is no way on that terrain the wheels would clog up.
- TempleOrion 7 hours 37 min ago
No. But do you think Trump is? 🤡💩🤣
- chrisonabike 8 hours 57 min ago
Was a stocking-filler type thing but always handy - reflective spoke straws. (They're not reflecting as I turned the flash off.)
- galibiervelo 9 hours 28 min ago
have it and love it. charge is the longest i have used for multi day trips. My missing star would be an angled bracket to point at traffic, not at...
- hawkinspeter 10 hours 28 min ago
Personally, I like reading about the new and/or expensive stuff even if I've got no intention of buying it. When I get the Cycling UK mag, I tend...
- hawkinspeter 12 hours 59 min ago
Dont forget Linford Christie
- Secret_squirrel 14 hours 12 min ago
I'm confused. What base layer isn't damp after a warm effort - it's the purpose of their entire existence. Wringing wet I might agree with. ...
- pockstone 17 hours 10 min ago
To add to the comedic potential, I really hope said chef was dressed in whites, including a toque blanche, and armed with a whisk and cleaver.
- mark1a 1 day 3 hours ago
Don't open at Edinburgh Fringe with that one.
- chrisonabike 1 day 13 hours ago
Aggrieved motorists?...
Add new comment
72 comments
I think that Mr Crane had the better solicitor, but I'm a little conflicted.
The dog owner certainly has responsibility for thier dog, and owes Mr Crane compensation. yet I think that she amy have been poorly served by a solicitor that apparently relied on the dog not being subject to the Animals Act. Rather than Mr Crane bore some responsibility.
Some of Mr Cranes testimony doesn'r ring true, yet seems to have been accepted by the judge.
Acton Green common is a wide open space. Mr Crane said that he couldn't have been traveling more than 5 mph. Even my lethargic 10 year old doesn't cruse that slow. If you are not going uphill it acctually takes some effort to go that slow.
Riding at 5 mph in a wide open space, he completely failed to see a dog running after a ball, untill it was right in front of him, and he had no time to stop! At no more than 5 mph! His eye sight wasn't mentioned so I presume bad vision isn't a factor.
Ms Read's testimony of Mr Crane cycling at speed with his head down seem to be a better fit for the circumstances of not seeing the dog approaching in a wide open space, until it was too late, and not beig able to stop in time once it was seen.
We will have to wait for the compensation to see. Perhaps the judge will reduce it with a contributory part.
Dogs are very quick and change direction quickly, so it really depends where the dog came from and how much time there was to react. 70 year olds also have slower reactions.
Cyclist was riding too fast for the conditions. It could have been a child that ran in front of him.
Does the speed of a child anywhere match the speed of a dog? That's why dig owners need to be in control of their pets.
as I interpret the reports the dog came from behind him then across his path. perhaps by riding faster the incident wouldn't have happened. Certainly a child would not have overtaken him even at a sensible cycling speed with a clear path ahead.
It's a shame that the comments on here regarding dogs and dog owners are no different to the Daily Mail comments section on a story about cyclists.
Care to highlight a particular example that you think is unfair? I've yet to see a generalization of all dog owners as being irresponsible and lawbreaking for example, nor suggestions that they are subhuman, consume a load of money for infrastructure that's better spent on cars, need to pay insurance and tax before they're allowed to walk their dogs, etc...
Fair comment is made about the behaviour of a subset of dog owners. I ride a lot of shared use paths and there are plenty of people who either have fast-moving or unpredictable dogs off a lead in violation of towpath rules about control (for example, a woman on a local towpath has a damn Border Collie that will charge you and attempt to herd you from substantial distance) or use the infernal extendable leads so that they're on one side of the towpath and the dog is way in front on the other side, so you're totally blocked until they recall the dog - _if_ they do, because some of them interpret "pedestrians have priority" as extending to their dogs. Such behaviour on a shared use path is irresponsible and selfish.
Dog owners have the potential to be just as entitled as some cyclists, car drivers, pedestrians etc.
this?
"Dog owners cause a huge amount of harm in our society, being held responsible for some of that harm is a step in the right direction."
OldRidgeback - thanks for taking up the cause. There were so many examples I really couldn't be bothered....
That's my quote.
Explain what's wrong with it please?
Substitute "dog owners" for "cyclists"....
So, by your infallible logic, the following sentence is also problematic.
Murderers cause a huge amount of harm in our society.
Come on mate, stay on topic; cyclists and/or dogs...
Come on mate, accept your point was stupid.
Look up the statistics for dog attacks and associated injuries then look again at my post that you took such issue with.
False equivalence. All murderers are by definition dangerous criminals.
Cycilsts and dog owners not so much.
You made a blanket statement about dog owners. One that you you probably wouldn't accept if someone substituted dog owner for cyclist.
Nope.
If you change the subject of a sentence you change the meaning of the sentence.
You can't claim a sentence is problematic because changing the subject makes it problematic. That's idiotic.
Dog owners do cause a huge amount of harm in our society.
That is fairly undeniable.
Look up the statistics for dog attacks if you don't believe me.
Our bicycles don't have minds of their own, and we don't let them run free.
Well I for one think it's about time that dog owners were accountable. They don't pay tax or contribute in any way. Only last night I was knocked over by a pack of them jumping a red light. Couldn't see them cos they didn't have hiviz or lights. They're always holding up the traffic going to fast. Why don't their dogs need a certificate of park worthiness? There they go taking up the whole park, chatting away 4, 5, sometimes more abreast, causing pollution and accidents.
That do? Only for balance of course
I have been seeing some very funky light up dog collars this year.
I firmly believe that all funky light up dogs should be required to wear collars
Dogs should be on a lead near a footpath, if it's a massive bit of land fine, keep the dog (by where you throw the ball) well away from other people, other dogs and paths. Very few dogs I have encountered are well trained enough to stay or be recalled and even for the trained ones the owners understood I didn't know the dog was trained and held the collar regardless, a big thanks to them.
A dog on a lead can be more dangerous than a dog off the lead, due to owners thinking 'it's on the lead so it's under control', only for the dog to bolt to the side createing a path wide obsticle thanks to owner on once side, dog on other with lovely tight cord in between.
When driving my car or riding my motorcycle, I assume there are likely to be cyclists or pedestrians near or on the road, particularly in built up areas, and drive/ride with the appropriate caution.
When riding my bike in built up areas, but especially on any path that is shared, I assume that there could be dogs (or children), and ride with the appropriate caution.
I think the highway code mentions something about this....
56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
Mr Crane's technical cycling ability, level of fitness, body mass, speed, misfortune in the way he fell or his choice of protective clothing that day are really rather irrelevant. All he had to show is that he came off the bicycle as a result of colliding with the dog which had run into his path, that he was not acting in a completely negligent manner and that the injuries he is claiming for are genuine and resulted from that incident.
Fundamentally (and having been on the wrong end of "he's just being friendly" dogs some of whom wag their tails and some who bare their teeth, growl and bite to demonstrate their friendliness) I am more than happy that this case hilights the responsibility of dog owners to control their animals at all times in public spaces.
That's a very good and level headed assessment of the case. I can almost guarantee the Daily Mail headline won't be as kind to Mr Crane, and will likely be attacking him for something... "Lycra LOUT MAMIL cyclist sues dog walker for £50k and WINS!" is my bet.
I personally would expect to see dogs in a park and be wary. Such a low speed affair and the fact its London- west London. Sense of entitlement, sue of the wind changes folk down there.
Ambulance chaser with symtoms of loss of concentration, sense of smell etc. All of which cant be proved conclusively, some of which could be put down to age.
I personally would expect to see bikes in a park and would ensure my dog was under control.
The cyclist was doing nothing illegal and was injured because somebody else failed in their legal duty of care towards him.
Consider a similar situation on the road.
Would you blame the cyclist if he was hit by a car which was out of control?
How about if a skilled cyclist could have avoided the collision?
You mean 'rejected' - it's not the judge's job to 'refute' anything.
Thank you, I was going to post the same. Many people don't understand the difference between refute and reject.
Good.
Hopefully a legal precedent will be set.
Dog owners cause a huge amount of harm in our society, being held responsible for some of that harm is a step in the right direction.
Pages