Cyclist left with brain injuries when dog ran into his path wins court case

What a bizarre view.

How exactly would you decide what level of harm to others is reasonable?

I would suggest that it is never reasonable to harm another person without their consent.

If everybody in society was held responsible for the harm they personally caused then we'd have a far more pleasant society to live in.

I'd also argue that if you're throwing a ball 30 feet through the air next to a footpath then the ball ending up on the footpath is hardly a freak occurrence. It's entirely predictable.

Rich_cb wrote:

How exactly would you decide what level of harm to others is reasonable?

It's not about the level of harm (at least not in isolation). It's about what is a reasonably foreseeable outcome.

In this case, I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to foresee that throwing a ball for their dog, in a different direction, could lead to significant harm to someone cycling past in a manner appropriate to their surroundings (i.e. at a speed, and with the right level of care and attention, to allow for the likelihood of there being children and animals playing, etc.).

On the other hand, it would be reasonable to expect someone to foresee that throwing the ball, carelessly or recklessly, across a path used for cycling, without first checking that it was clear, would be likely to lead to harm, and so when it does they should bear some blame for that harm.

Following your argument.

Throwing a ball across a path is negligent but throwing a ball near a path with sufficient velocity that it could bounce on to the path is not negligent?

I'll concede that they represent differing degrees of negligence but both actions could predictably lead to harm given the right circumstances.

Unless the park in question is incredibly narrow I would imagine there are many safe areas to throw the ball away from the path in question.

By choosing not to throw the ball in a safe area the dog owner failed in her legal duty of care towards other park users.

Throwing a ball near a path with sufficient velocity that it could reasonably be expected that it might bounce on to the path in such a way that would be liable to cause harm would be negligent.

It's not a question of whether it could predictably lead to harm given the right circumstances, but whether those circumstances were themselves reasonably predictable.

So it boils down to whether you think it's reasonable for someone to predict that the ball might ricochet, and that in doing so it would not only send the dog across the path, but do so in such a way that would be likely to cause harm to someone cycling. I'm not convinced that it is.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time throwing balls to dogs.

Anyone who has done is well aware of how far the ball can end up from where you threw it.

This wasn't a freak occurrence, it was an entirely predictable outcome.

If you were asked to draw up a list of potential risks from exercising a dog in a park near to a shared use path I expect that 'dog colliding with person on path' would be pretty near the top.

The owner chose to take that risk and is liable for the outcome.

Again, my point is that it shouldn't be about whether it could be reasonably expected that the ball might deviate from where it was thrown, but about whether it was likely to do so in such a way as it was likely to cause harm. I would say not - in the vast majority of cases, someone cycling at a reasonable speed for the surroundings, and paying due attention to what was going on, would have been able to avoid a collision without problems.

You've conceded that throwing a ball across path is dangerous.

If that is true then throwing a ball in a location where there is an x% chance of the ball crossing the path is also dangerous as the potential outcomes are identical.

The dog owner chose to take that risk and somebody came to harm as a result of that choice.

They are therefore responsible for the consequences of their choice.

The harm caused was undoubtedly greater because of the age of the victim and his relative cycling proficiency but that wouldn't be a defence in other circumstances.

If I punched a 70 year old in the face it would likely cause more harm than if I punched Tyson Fury, that's not a basis to dismiss my culpability.

The judge got it wrong then? Or dogs behave in random ways and it is foreseeable that in certain interactions the dog will cause harm due to it's speed and random movement when in proximity to people?
Hence why dogs should be on a lead in many public situations.

mdavidford wrote:

So no-one should ever exercise a dog off the lead for fear of something unforeseen happening, leading to them getting sued? 

Not unless they're prepared to accept the (small) risk or are adequately insured.

When I go out on the bike there's a small risk I could accidentally cause harm to someone else and end up getting sued. So I've got 3rd party insurance for that.

That just sounds like another layer of bureaucracy. The CIC and MIB funds are generally a backup when there is no insurance to make a claim against.

Although what you would do in a personal injury case like this if the defendent had no insurance or any personal wealth I'm not sure. There's no equivalent fund for personal injury - maybe life insurance policies give you some cover for personal injury? Maybe I ought to think about a personal injury insurance policy??!

There would be some bureaucracy, but it's not extra, it's replacement. It would negate the need for people to make claims on private personal injury or life insurance. And where a 'no blame' decision was taken it would remove the need for legal actions and court cases, which are a form of bureaucracy in themselves.

But more importantly, it would be fairer, because it wouldn't depend on any party's means, and whether they were able to provide themselves with insurance or, in the case where they were negligent, etc., to make an adequate payout.

That's the NZ system.