- 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
- chrisonabike 3 sec ago
Add Scotland to that list. You won't even find a dashcam reporting portal in Scotland either so you can forget that also.
- E6toSE3 44 min 5 sec ago
And years ago Laura Trott, Daniel King, Joanne Rowsell, as theyvwere after Olympic gold, got lots of being and Jaguars, when Jags were very...
- lawrence18uk 1 hour 21 min ago
I must admit I find it odd. I assumed a cyclist had run into a bus driver, fallen off and as a consequence, died (as in "run over by a bus driver")...
- kingleo 1 hour 43 min ago
Did commuting to and from work on my bike for 46 years in the London traffic increase the number of my red blood cells? - my breathing is superb, ...
- Hirsute 1 hour 58 min ago
I made a complaint within an hour of the story being published. I have zero faith that they will amend anything....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 16 min ago
Especially children, near a school, one might imagine? By a bus driver driving children to school?...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 20 min ago
TBF I think that's before she saw the light and got on her bike. Not so great if her views have been informed by Mr. Briggs though.
- Saracen888 2 hours 59 min ago
That's a great price. Just bear in mind Import duty and handling charges will be applied pre delivery.
- Griff500 4 hours 21 min ago
Yep, I appreciate your problem. I wouldn't buy a bike without at least sitting on the same frame configuration on a trainer in the shop, something...
- Secret_squirrel 5 hours 35 min ago
One less thing to clutter up your jersey pockets no? Though difficult to retrieve in a hurry...
Add new comment
72 comments
Oh, well.
Dogs don't litter. It's their owners who don't scoop their poop. Dogs don't go to KFC and leave a bunch of half-empty packages right next to it. Dogs don't get drunk and behave antisocially. Dogs don't gather during lockdown just to "listen to the music" or whatever execuse is.
In 99% of cases it's people being absolutely not responsible for their own behaviour who are to blame for dogs, cyclists, car drivers mistakes.
And it's the owner who will have to pay the compensation, not the dog...
The owner's insurance, not the owner.
What legal precedent, exactly, do you hope will be set from this civil case? Dog owners have always been held responsible for damge caused by their pets – that's nothing new. Do you want this case to spur counclils to impose leash laws on every park with a footpath? Or a banning of the game of fetch? Becasue that's the only thing that would have prevented this accident.
I find the claim that a cyclist rding at 5mph would have "no time" to see a cocker spaniel bounding in from their periphery. But ultimately, the judge had access to a lot more evidence, and knows far more about correctly applying the law than anyone on a cycling website. It will be interesting to see what the final judgement is in order to gauge how much responsibility he attributes to the dog owner.
"Becasue that's the only thing that would have prevented this accident." Not really the only thing boo.
The legal precedent that the dangerous dogs act applies to all dogs that cause harm.
The defence argued that it did not apply in this case.
Now that a judge has found that it does, in fact, apply to cases like this it should make legal proceeding against negligent dog owners far more straightforward.
There are safe places to play fetch and places where such a game could predictably lead to harm.
The path in question was firmly in the latter camp.
Absolutely right that these callous dog owners are made accountable for their negligence in their inability to keep their dogs under control.
Well done for not letting this dangerous dog owner off scot free. There are too many of them that have allowed their dogs to roam free and foul public or private areas without cleaning up and causing a health hazzard, particularly to children.
There were critics about this legal claim and now have to chew their own words, and the vulnerable victim has been vindicated.
Cyclists are always, unfairly, targeted by nasty and cowardice anti-cylist fanatics, who NEVER seem to uttrer a word against dangerous motorists, despite killing or injuring innocents in the 10000s, including children, and countless more harmed through toxic exhaust fumes and DIRTY DIESEL - is this them (anti-cylists) approving harmful motorists?
Or just disagree with the judge's decision. Judges are not infallible.
Most of the criticisms centred on interpretation of the law.
The judge, who we have to assume is a legal expert, has sided with the interpretation that the dog owner is responsible for harm caused by their dog regardless of intention.
Those who disagree can, of course, continue to do so but their arguments carry far less weight given that expert opinion on the matter differs from their own.
("Or just disagree with the judge's decision. Judges are not infallible")
Do you disagree with the judge's decision?
If so, why?
Maybe all those inconsiderate dog owners will now start following the HC and keeping their dogs on leads on shared use paths. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to take fairly drastic action to avoid a dog, including one which chased after me, overtook, and stopped right in front of me; I made the owner very aware of his obligations.
I imagine it will happen about the same time inconsiderate cyclists stop riding on pavements and jumping red lights.
On the basis of what's been reported here I find the whole case rather dubious and a case of ambulance chasing at its finest. I'd love to know what evidence there is for the 5mph and brain injury claim.
This sort of tripe shouldn't be entertained as it just leads to a compensation culture.
Just bear in mind that any compo is probably coming off of her house insurance and therefore her premiums and anyone elses with the same company. The only winners will be the lawyers.
That's coming from a cyclist and a dog owner whose also been knocked off by a dog.
On the basis of what's reported here I find your whole case rather dubious
Enough evidence to convince the Judge; which I think you'll find is all that matters.
Since it's a civil case the judge decides on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. We'll see what he thinks about the injuries when he awards damages...
My point about this being another dubious victory for compensation culture stands..
Oooer missus...
Naaa. I tried to get the missus involved but she wasn't having any of it!
I'm curious why you felt the need to point this out. Loads of people are cunts. Some of these ride bicycles, some of these drive cars, some play golf and I'd bet that the occasional bell-end has even made it into space.
So I agree with the rest of the post, but I find it somewhat odd when one has to point out that they are themself an etc etc as if not being an etc etc would invalidate their point.
Not trying to be arsy, just an observation.
Yes, the brain injury. Any evidence it was not pre-existing? Given that he could not retrieve the situation - at 5mph.
A little callous?
Well, ok, a little. I just find it hard to swallow - according to him he is cycling very cautiously at no more than 5mph, yet is unable to handle a minor occurrence, ends up brain injured. What was it, a cocker spaniel, stopped the bike dead and he went over the bars? One expects a modicum of proficiency on a bicycle. Maybe it happened like he said.
Edit Actually it does not say the dog stopped the bike dead. It says he "was thrown over the handlebars of his bike as he tried to avoid the cocker spaniel". Sounds like he jammed the front brake on.
At the age of 70 his reactions aren't going to be great.
Never toppled over when unfailing to clip I take it ?
btw MiL has broken wrist, hip ankle from tripping over at 0-1 mph
On a topic from earlier in the year, one doctor reported on the new knee trauma clinic where over 50% of knee problems were from falling over due to own dog/ other dog / dog lead issues.
That is a very condescending attitude to have there. From that comment I'm inferring you mean "He must be brain damaged as he couldn't stay upright on a bike where the front wheel stops dead."
...at walking pace.
There ftfy.
You're a fast walker then as most people are 3-4mph.
I was only at walking pace when I hit a kerb and almost went over the bars only saving myself barely and giving my thigh a right whack off the drop end. I had gone to bunny hop my front wheel up it but as I was so slow it dropped back off it and the bike stopped dead but my bodies momentum still took me forward as it was unexpected. My mrs almost wet herself laughing and a passing motorist asked me if I was alright. It was embarrasing. Now I'm not 18 stone but I'm alot nearer to that weight then I am Chris Froome's so I can see how it can happen.
So thanks for diagnosing I must be brain injured. I will ring my Docs up first thing in the morning.
Where are you getting "the front wheel stops dead" from?
The 5mph I couldn't say, maybe he had stava. However the brain injury and the long term effects would be evidenced by medical records accessible by both sides and IF there was any doubt on those, the defence would have raised that as a concern. So I guess it wasn't as they only raised the "he shouldn't have been there defence" which either is wrong or the Judge decided was not a factor (and Ealing Byelaws do not mention Acton Green Common but Acton Park), and "the dog was stunned by the ball whacking off his head", (how hard did she throw the ball at it?)
As for "compensation culture" and "ambulance chasing comments"; shouldn't someone who has long term injuries which has affected their quality of life get monetary compensation if it is adjudged someone else caused the injury? We are not talking about a small scar on the lip here.
And as for the compo coming off her insurance. That is the whole point of insurance and any claim made comes from premiums? Would you not claim for your stolen or crashed car because it comes off your premiums and anyone elses with the same company?
We will know more anyway on the awards hearing for full liability or not but the judge seems to be only looking one way at the moment.
I'd say the problem is with insisting on finding someone who can be adjudged to have caused the injury. It would make much more sense to me if there was a common 'accidental injuries fund' that could be claimed from if you've suffered injuries through no fault of your own, without having to pursue an individual - similar to criminal injuries compensation. It would then be open to, but not required by, the agency administrating the fund to pursue others if they felt they had contributed by negligence, etc., but you'd get the compensation based on the impact of the event, not on the mean of someone you can find to blame it on, or whether you can find someone to blame it on at all.
There is nothing accidental about choosing not to control your dog on a lead. You are responsible for your dog's actions and the consequences thereof. Having it on a lead increases your ability to perform that responsibility. She chose not to have it in a lead and must accept the consequences. It may have been a "freak" accident in her view, but it's only freak if you ignore the fact she chose not to have the dog under her control in the first place.
So no-one should ever exercise a dog off the lead for fear of something unforeseen happening, leading to them getting sued? Exercising a dog in a park seems to me to be a reasonable thing to do, that shouldn't carry with it a risk of financial harm because something unexpected happens while you're doing it.
Unfortunately we've got to a place where whenever something goes wrong, 'Someone Must Be To Blame'. We can no longer accept that the world is an imperfect place where sometimes bad things happen, despite everybody involved acting reasonably, and not being deserving of blame.
Pages