Judge says cyclists – and dog owners – “have a sense of absolute entitlement”

A judge has said that cyclists and dog owners both “have a sense of absolute entitlement” as he allowed an appeal in a case brought after a bike rider won £50,000 compensation after a Cocker Spaniel ran into his path, causing him to crash and sustain a brain injury.

Publishing executive David Crane, aged 71, was thrown over the handlebars of his bike when he hit the dog belonging to investment banker Carina Read, 49, on Acton Green Common in West London in March 2016.

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

Ms Read has now been given leave to appeal against the judgment, by Judge Alan Saggerson, reports Mail Online.

The judge said: “We all know that cyclists whether on path, road or common, have a sense of absolute entitlement to do whatever they want to do and we all know that dog owners also have a similar sense of entitlement to do exactly what they want to do irrespective of anybody else.

“It's quite a conundrum.”

Mr Sanderson had sued Ms Crane for negligence, as well as being in breach of the 1971 Animals Act for failure to control her dog.

In October last year, 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.”