Liability over dog causing injury

Lambsalot

Hey,

I'm finding it hard to find much information on this but a taxi drive opened my gate to drive in which let our dog out. It saw a man walking a dog on the other side of the road and ran at them causing the man to fall over.

-We didn't order this taxi, it was looking for the neighbours house.
-Taxies/delivery drivers have never opened it before you have to reach through to open it.
-We only close it when we let the dog run around the garden, he'll go on the road otherwise.
-We don't have a beware the dog sign.
-He's a medium size dog that likes to run after other dogs but he's never attacked anyone.

I complained to the driver over why he opened the gate and left it open but he couldn't have cared less, said it wasn't his fault and left.

The guy(20's) who fell over screamed that our dog attacked him and said he broke his wrist falling.

I'm scared now that he will try and sue and have to dog put down.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated thank you.

Pat Mustard

Notify your insurance company.

Pass the registration of the taxi to your solicitor and ask him/her to find out the relevant details of the driver, if possible.

Little CuChulainn

How does someone get the attention of a person in the house without opening the gate? Do you have an intercom?

njs030

A dog should always be under the control of his/her owner, I would think that includes making sure any area the dog can access is properly secured if you aren't there to supervise.

Unfortunately you didn't have control of your dog when it was able to run across the road and cause an accident to happen. It's unlikely he/she will be put to sleep unless there was a proper attack or bite but you really need to make sure you have everything legal in place in case the dog warden calls out (license, collar and tag etc) to avoid further complications.

bladespin

I'd imagine it might be covered under home inaurance (public liability), worth checking with your insurer. As for putting down, no reason to unless it's viscious. Had something similar happen a few years back, dog lead broke and the rottie (gentle giant) ran over to another dog for a nosey, owner said she was attacking and proceeded to hit her with a stick - didn't like that so interjected and received a belt if it myself, gardai were only interested if I wanted to pursue it.

To Elland Back

bladespin wrote: »

I'd imagine it might be covered under home inaurance (public liability), worth checking with your insurer. .

It would providing it is a domestic pet (not a trained guard dog) and is not one of the prescribed breeds

REXER

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

How does someone get the attention of a person in the house without opening the gate? Do you have an intercom?

I guess that the same would apply to the front door then, if you yodelled and got no response?
Just open up and walk in as there was no response and no intercom! :eek:

What next, the bedroom or the bathroom?

Sleeper12

The guy that fell has to sue you. Your dog has to be under control at all times.
You can try sue the taxi driver but I don't think leaving the gate open is something that you can sue for.
As a fellow dog owner I feel for you as it's not exactly your fault either.

uck51js9zml2yt

Surely the dog was under control in a secure environment.
The taxi driver had no reason to open the gate.Is this not trespass?

GM228

REXER wrote: »

I guess that the same would apply to the front door then, if you yodelled and got no response?
Just open up and walk in as there was no response and no intercom! :eek:

What next, the bedroom or the bathroom?

Leah Plump Smorgasbord wrote: »

Surely the dog was under control in a secure environment.
The taxi driver had no reason to open the gate.Is this not trespass?

I suppose the way to look at it is it is reasonable to expect someone open your gate to enable them to knock at your front door, but it's not reasonable to expect someone to open your front door.

And no doubt a court would suggest the same, if it's reasonable to expect someone open your front gate then it's reasonable to expect the owner of the dog to have it under control in such circumstances.

I'm curious about this, if member of the public can open your gate with ease (i.e it's not locked etc) then is it regarded as a secure place?

REXER

Trespass is trespass. A closed and secured (latched) gate is not an invitation to enter.
I would never open a strangers gate to get access to the house unless I was expected!

There are just too meny things that can go wrong, like dogs etc.

Little CuChulainn

REXER wrote: »

I guess that the same would apply to the front door then, if you yodelled and got no response?
Just open up and walk in as there was no response and no intercom! :eek:

What next, the bedroom or the bathroom?

Entering a yard to get to the front door is very different to entering a house. I would think someone with even the most basic grasp of law would understand this.

GM228

REXER wrote: »

Trespass is trespass. A closed and secured (latched) gate is not an invitation to enter.
I would never open a strangers gate to get access to the house unless I was expected!

There are just too meny things that can go wrong, like dogs etc.

Trespass is only an offence if the person trespassing hadn't a reasonable excuse to be there and there was an intent to cause harm etc.

So if the taxi driver was accessing the property to say ring your bell for example then surely he is not technically trespassing, if he believed he was at the correct address then it was reasonable for him to open the gate to contact you.

You would find that if this went to court it would be up to the court to decide if it was "reasonable" or not, not what we think is reasonable.

cruizer101

I would be of opinion you had the dog under full control. Do you have the taxi drivers number and that. If he had to reach through the gate to unlatch it to open it I would think that is secure enough to say it is his fault. Why should you be expected to lock it everytime if it is secure enough.
Also you mention he left it open, surly there is at least the onus on someone to leave it closed if it was closed.

Also its odd for a taxi driver to call to house, in my experience they beep horn and then ring if no sign of anyone. Did you see the whole event of dog running across road and that.

Also, not saying it didn't happen but for a man in their 20's to fall over and break a wrist when a dog runs at them is a bit suspicious if you ask me. Initially when you said man fell over I thought an old man.
If they are looking for money for that I would be looking for x-rays and doctors certs etc, making sure they are not just looking for a quick buck.

BattleCorp

REXER wrote: »

Trespass is trespass. A closed and secured (latched) gate is not an invitation to enter.
I would never open a strangers gate to get access to the house unless I was expected!

There are just too meny things that can go wrong, like dogs etc.

How does a postman deliver mail to your house?

Are you seriously saying that everybody who knocks on your front door/rings the doorbell is trespassing?

njs030

A dog must be under full control at all times, it's quite obvious the dog wasnt under control when it was able to run across a road.

I have dogs myself and have some sympathy for the Op but when your dog is often to be dog aggressive it's up to you to go the extra mile to be 100% sure the dog is secure.
My gate has a top and bottom lock to ensure no one can lean in and open it, the top one has a padlock for added security.
Maybe Op would consider making the gate more secure so if anything further happens he is able to say the problem has been addressed.

I agree it sounds odd that a young man fell over and broke a wrist because a dog ran towards him barking though!

jimmycrackcorm

Leah Plump Smorgasbord wrote:

Surely the dog was under control in a secure environment. The taxi driver had no reason to open the gate.Is this not trespass?

It's not a secure environment otherwise how does the postman mail in the letterbox? A locked gate is secure, anyone passing by could open the gate.

cruizer101

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's not a secure environment otherwise how does the postman mail in the letterbox? A locked gate is secure, anyone passing by could open the gate.

What about a side gate with a bolt, not under lock and key but just closed and locked with a bolt. Anyone can open it but that doesn't mean it would be considered reasonable to go through.

Maybe OP has a letterbox at gate for postman. Is there anything that confers right of way from a persons gate to their front door.

The OP also said the taxi driver left the gate open surely there is a onus on someone who does open a closed and secured gate to make sure they leave it as it was originally.

Here is something that may be relevant

Although there used to be some doubt about it, it seems now to be well settled by two Irish cases that the act of a third party is a good defence to an action in Cattle Trespass. In Moloney v. Stephens159 the plaintiff and defendant owned adjoining property and a third party had a right of way over both farms. The third party in exercising his right of way failed to close a gate as he was obliged to do with the result that the defendant's horses trampled on the plaintiff's land. Judge O Briain in following an earlier Irish case, McGibbon v. McCorry160 said in quite unequivocal language “that the defendant has established a good defence in law to this action by showing that the trespass complained of was caused by the wrongful acts of a third”161.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpAnimals.htm number 97

In OP's case the damage was caused by the negligence of a third party as I would see it.

BattleCorp

cruizer101 wrote: »

What about a side gate with a bolt, not under lock and key but just closed and locked with a bolt. Anyone can open it but that doesn't mean it would be considered reasonable to go through.

The taxi driver didn't know the area and was looking for someone. I know it is wrong to make assumptions but common sense would dictate that the taxi driver would use the gate nearest to the front door. If the gate used gives reasonable access to the front door, then it wouldn't matter if this was a front gate or side gate. It all depends on the design of the house/garden. If it is near to the front door, I believe people are free to use it (unless it is locked).

Is there anything that confers right of way from a persons gate to their front door.

I very much doubt that there is anything that confers right of way from a persons gate to their front door. However, if I call to your house and enter through the front gate, I don't have a right of way. You are free to tell me to bugger off and prevent me from accessing the front door. Big difference between having a right of way and having a way to access the front door of the house. If the gate was locked and forced open, then the circumstances would be different but clearly this isn't the case here.

The OP also said the taxi driver left the gate open surely there is a onus on someone who does open a closed and secured gate to make sure they leave it as it was originally.

The taxi driver didn't know the area so how could he be reasonably expected to know that there was a dog there? Were there signs up letting the taxi driver know that there was a dog? Were there signs up to inform people to keep the gate closed? Could the home owner reasonably foresee that the dog might escape through an open gate should it be left open? If this was forseeable, what measures did the homeowner take to prevent this from happening?

There are a lot of unknowns in this case and I wouldn't be so quick to apportion blame to the taxi driver.

GM228

cruizer101 wrote: »

In OP's case the damage was caused by the negligence of a third party as I would see it.

In order to be negligent, there first has to be a duty of care, what duty of care would the taxi driver have to the OP? It would actually be the other way around.

It's reasonable to expect someone to enter your garden to ring your doorbell and an occupier owes a duty of care to reasonably foreseeable trespassers which means the dog should have been secured away from a reasonable trespasser, had that been the case then the dog could not access anywhere someone would reasonably be in your garden.

I also find the Rylands v. Fletcher case interesting.

Under the rule laid down in this case “the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape”.

goz83

I think it's reasonable to expect that when entering a strangers property by means of a closed front gate, that you close the gate behind you. You might otherwise leave entry/exit for an animal, or child without intent, but by negligence (and quite frankly, lack of manners).

The taxi man imo was not trespassing, but should have closed the gate both times upon entry and exit. His decision to enter gave him a duty of care the moment he reached through and opened the gate to gain access to private property. The dog was released as a result of an adult stranger being careless upon entering another persons secured property.

bladespin

Was there a 'please close the gate sign'?

Indricotherium

GM228 wrote: »

I also find the Rylands v. Fletcher case interesting.

Jaysus

_Brian

ive seem a similar case where a gate was opened and cattle accessed the road causing a traffic accident.

Farmer definitely left gate closed and gate was actually locked but a third party removed the lock for access and forgot to close the gate.

Liability was 100% with the owner of the animals.


I would see the same in this case op. Owning an animal includes accepting you are liable for damage caused by them in public.

screamer

Were there any witnesses to this "falling over". Regardless of whether you sre liable or not is this genuine? Did the other guy fall over because your dog ran at him or because he just fell over.... I smell a fraud tbh. Surely it would need to be proven that he fell the to the dog for any liability to be apportioned to you.

screamer

Were there any witnesses to this "falling over". Regardless of whether you sre liable or not is this genuine? Did the other guy fall over because your dog ran at him or because he just fell over.... I smell a fraud tbh. Surely it would need to be proven that he fell the to the dog for any liability to be apportioned to you.

The Bishop Basher

Similar happened us a few years ago.

Someone opened the gate momentarily. The dog got out and was hit and killed by a car. There was significant damage to the car. It never crossed my mind that I want responsible. I was just happy no one was injured.

It's your dog, you are responsible for it at ALL times. If costs are incurred by the injured party you are liable.

elperello

cruizer101 wrote: »

I would be of opinion you had the dog under full control. Do you have the taxi drivers number and that. If he had to reach through the gate to unlatch it to open it I would think that is secure enough to say it is his fault. Why should you be expected to lock it everytime if it is secure enough.
Also you mention he left it open, surly there is at least the onus on someone to leave it closed if it was closed.

Also its odd for a taxi driver to call to house, in my experience they beep horn and then ring if no sign of anyone. Did you see the whole event of dog running across road and that.

Also, not saying it didn't happen but for a man in their 20's to fall over and break a wrist when a dog runs at them is a bit suspicious if you ask me. Initially when you said man fell over I thought an old man.
If they are looking for money for that I would be looking for x-rays and doctors certs etc, making sure they are not just looking for a quick buck.

If there is a claim either your insurance or your solicitor will be checking all the details.

REXER

bladespin wrote: »

Was there a 'please close the gate sign'?

Where was the "Please open the gate and come on in" sign, along with the "Don't bother to close the gate after your arse" sign?

BattleCorp

REXER wrote: »

Where was the "Please open the gate and come on in" sign, along with the "Don't bother to close the gate after your arse" sign?

Whatever is not prohibited is permitted.

There doesn't have to be signs up to say "Please open the gate and come on in". Manners dictates that the taxi driver probably should have closed the gate. That doesn't mean he is legally liable for the dog getting out. He might not have known that there was a dog there.

ohnonotgmail

_Brian wrote: »

ive seem a similar case where a gate was opened and cattle accessed the road causing a traffic accident.

Farmer definitely left gate closed and gate was actually locked but a third party removed the lock for access and forgot to close the gate.

Liability was 100% with the owner of the animals.


I would see the same in this case op. Owning an animal includes accepting you are liable for damage caused by them in public.

the situation with livestock is different. the owner is strictly liable for any damage done by his livestock.

bladespin

REXER wrote: »

Where was the "Please open the gate and come on in" sign, along with the "Don't bother to close the gate after your arse" sign?

They're not required; unless you have a'stay out' sign or similar.

A simple 'close the gate' sign might at least shift a portion of the onus onto those entering - not legally though.

ford2600

It's hardly unexpected that someone might in time leave gate open. The simple fitting of a spring loaded gate closer would have almost eliminated risk of dog escaping.

Some people are terrified of dogs. The injured party's action might not be that unusual. I'd be having a very close look at medical records in time though.

I'd certainly be notifying insurance company so they have opportunity to investigate fully at an early stage and they don't try and wiggle out due to late notification

Unfortunate event OP

jeamimus

Lambsalot wrote: »

Hey,
It saw a man walking a dog on the other side of the road and ran at them causing the man to fall over.

What likely happened here is that the guys dog saw yours and went to attack him. In his lunge at your dog he pulled over the guy at the other end of the lead.

His wrist was broken by his own dog...

Don't worry about it.

GM228

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the situation with livestock is different. the owner is strictly liable for any damage done by his livestock.

The strict liability only applies if damage is done by livestock on anothers land, it won't necessarily apply in a public place, for example if cattle cause damage while they are being driven on a public road, the owner will only be liable for the damage caused if they are in some way negligent in the course of driving the cattle.

Negligence in this case might be something like driving too many cattle at once or failing to have adequate help present to control the animals.

Strict liability applies to dog owners for any injury to a person by a dogs owner or controller except to injury to a trespasser (but that exception dosn't apply if negligence was on the owners part).

Also an occupier has a duty of care to a reasonably expected trespasser and so it could be argued that the OP was actually negligent towards the Taxi driver by not providing a warning of the dogs presence or allowing the dog to be in a place where a reasonably expected trespasser could be, remember the Taxi driver could easily have been the one to fall.

goz83 wrote: »

His decision to enter gave him a duty of care the moment he reached through and opened the gate to gain access to private property.

The owner/occupier has a duty of care over people on their property, the Taxi drivers duty of care to the OP would be not to dmaage their property etc, opening/closing gates/doors etc is manners but not a duty of care. Same as if you have somebody in your house and they forget to close a door in your house, they don't have a "duty" to close any door in your house.

zagmund

The first thing that came into my head was that this was a set up - there's just too much coincidental stuff going on. In my experience taxi drivers just sit outside and beep the horn, yet your (only) post says he wanted to drive into your driveway. I have *never* had a taxi driver drive in to my driveway. I don't think I've ever seen a taxi in a driveway anywhere, other than parked up at the taxi drivers home.

Assuming you got the guys name (the one who fell over), have a poke around on social media and see if he has any taxi driving friends. Did you check find out where the taxi was trying to find? Did they order a taxi? Did you get the taxi drivers details? Witnesses . . .

I call shenanigans.

z

Lambsalot wrote: »

Hey,

I'm finding it hard to find much information on this but a taxi drive opened my gate to drive in which let our dog out. It saw a man walking a dog on the other side of the road and ran at them causing the man to fall over.

-We didn't order this taxi, it was looking for the neighbours house.
-Taxies/delivery drivers have never opened it before you have to reach through to open it.
-We only close it when we let the dog run around the garden, he'll go on the road otherwise.
-We don't have a beware the dog sign.
-He's a medium size dog that likes to run after other dogs but he's never attacked anyone.

I complained to the driver over why he opened the gate and left it open but he couldn't have cared less, said it wasn't his fault and left.

The guy(20's) who fell over screamed that our dog attacked him and said he broke his wrist falling.

I'm scared now that he will try and sue and have to dog put down.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated thank you.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

The dog was "under control" ffs. He was behind a closed gate.

Another scenario - the dog was in your home and someone decided to open your front door. By doing so he/she lets the dog run free. Now the same accident occurs... was the dog under control?
Would you prefer that dogs are chained up no matter where they are?

Also, what if the taxi driver was 'in' on the "accident". Played along, opened the gate purposely to allow the dog out? Would the dog have been deemed under control?

The blame is on the taxi driver. Report him for trespass to his carriage office and to the Gardaí.

GM228

Reporting the taxi driver to the Gardaí for trespass is a waste of time, they will not and can not do anything about it (unless tied in with an accusation of fraud if you suspect he was in on it) as trespass in this case is a civil matter unless there was an intent to cause harm etc.

Pat Mustard

Kathryn Slow User wrote: »

The blame is on the taxi driver.

Mod:

OP, you cannot rely on any of the advice that you receive in this forum, which could come from any source.

Kathryn Slow User, please do not attempt to comment on who is liable as this will amount to legal advice. Giving legal advice is against the forum charter and boards.ie rules.

Pat Mustard

There has been no mention of the Control of Dogs Act yet, in a thread about an injury caused by a dog.

BattleCorp

Kathryn Slow User wrote: »

The dog was "under control" ffs. He was behind a closed gate.

The dog was behind a gate that could reasonably be expected to be opened from time to time by casual callers to the house, possibly postmen, delivery people, canvassers, ESB meter readers etc.

Another scenario - the dog was in your home and someone decided to open your front door. By doing so he/she lets the dog run free. Now the same accident occurs... was the dog under control?
Would you prefer that dogs are chained up no matter where they are?

Entering the house is a bit different though than cold calling to the front door of a house looking for directions/people. I have a dog and sometimes when I open the front door, the dog will run outside. When the dog does this, I don't have full control of the dog. The OP, in my useless opinion, didn't have full control of the dog at the time the gate was opened, a gate that could reasonably be expected to be opened from time to time. The OP even stated that they keep the gate closed because the dog will run out onto the road. The OP could foresee that the dog would escape through the gate and didn't take sufficient measures to prevent this happening.

Also, what if the taxi driver was 'in' on the "accident". Played along, opened the gate purposely to allow the dog out? Would the dog have been deemed under control?

On the amount of information we have here, it does seem like the OP doesn't suspect fraud.

Was the OP there at the same time as the taxi driver? It seems like he was because he claimed he spoke to the taxi driver and the taxi driver didn't seem to care. Was this as soon as the incident occurred? If the OP was there, why didn't he close the gate himself or at least tell the taxi driver to close the gate. We don't know the exact timeline of events so I'm assuming a few things here.

The OP stated that there was no sign such as "beware of dog" etc. so how would the taxi driver know that there was a dog there?

The blame is on the taxi driver. Report him for trespass to his carriage office and to the Gardaí.

I don't see how the taxi driver can be legally held liable. What is the taxi driver to be charged with when you report him to the Gardai? Seriously, do you think it is a crime to call to someone's door and ask for directions? Is it a crime to leave a person's front gate open when you have received no instruction as to the importance of keeping it closed?

GM228

Pat Mustard wrote: »

There has been no mention of the Control of Dogs Act yet, in a thread about an injury caused by a dog.

This is relevant from the Act!

Liability of owner for damage by dog.

21.—(1) The owner of a dog shall be liable in damages for damage caused in an attack on any person by the dog and for injury done by it to any livestock; and it shall not be necessary for the person seeking such damages to show a previous mischievous propensity in the dog, or the owner's knowledge of such previous propensity, or to show that such injury or damage was attributable to neglect on the part of the owner.

TheChizler

GM228 wrote: »

This is relevant from the Act!

I suppose it's up to those involved to determine whether a dog running over to another dog and that owner

a) getting a fright resulting in them falling over
b) being jumped on and knocked over (doesn't sound like this happened)
or c) being pulled over by their own dog

should be considered to be an attack!

GM228

TheChizler wrote: »

I suppose it's up to those involved to determine whether a dog running over to another dog and that owner

a) getting a fright resulting in them falling over
b) being jumped on and knocked over (doesn't sound like this happened)
or c) being pulled over by their own dog

should be considered to be an attack!

Isn't attack an act of aggression or intimidation?

A dog running at somebody could qualify for either especially intimidation which would be hard to disprove.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Thank you for the mod note. To clarify, I did not say the taxi driver was 'liable'. I said the taxi driver was to blame. Two very different statements.
The taxi driver was at fault and should take responsibility for his actions.

No legal advice to be taken from my post(s).

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Mod:

OP, you cannot rely on any of the advice that you receive in this forum, which could come from any source.

ProjectMoose, please do not attempt to comment on who is liable as this will amount to legal advice. Giving legal advice is against the forum charter and boards.ie rules.

TheChizler

GM228 wrote: »

Isn't attack an act of aggression or intimidation?

A dog running at somebody could qualify for either especially intimidation which would be hard to disprove.

Or indeed prove for that matter?

GM228

TheChizler wrote: »

Or indeed prove for that matter?

In the case of intimidation from a dog I would think it's harder to disprove than prove as some people have a natural fear of dogs and someone who says they were afraid of a dog running at them would have to be taken at face value. If I tell a court that I felt intimidated by a dog running at me, it has to be taken as fact surely because there is no way to disprove what I'm saying.

Who wouldn't feel intimidated (even in the slightest) by a strange dog running at them?

njs030

Pat Mustard wrote: »

There has been no mention of the Control of Dogs Act yet, in a thread about an injury caused by a dog.

I mentioned it twice.

TheChizler

GM228 wrote: »

In the case of intimidation from a dog I would think it's harder to disprove than prove as some people have a natural fear of dogs and someone who says they were afraid of a dog running at them would have to be taken at face value. If I tell a court that I felt intimidated by a dog running at me, it has to be taken as fact surely because there is no way to disprove what I'm saying.

Who wouldn't feel intimidated (even in the slightest) by a strange dog running at them?

Feeling intimidated and being intimidated are different things though. I wouldn't necessarily be intimidated by a strange dog running towards me, depends on the situation and their body language. Mouth open and tongue out, bounding run, tail down or up and wagging, front legs bent would be fine, but snarling/growling, ears forward, tail stiff, face wrinkled and lips curled would be intimidating. Neither case would ideally happen in a public place as they should be under control, but a dog running towards you isn't objectively intimidating.

bladespin

TheChizler wrote: »

Feeling intimidated and being intimidated are different things though.

Not really tbh.

GM228

TheChizler wrote: »

Feeling intimidated and being intimidated are different things though. I wouldn't necessarily be intimidated by a strange dog running towards me, depends on the situation and their body language. Mouth open and tongue out, bounding run, tail down or up and wagging, front legs bent would be fine, but snarling/growling, ears forward, tail stiff, face wrinkled and lips curled would be intimidating. Neither case would ideally happen in a public place as they should be under control, but a dog running towards you isn't objectively intimidating.

Feeling intimidated and being intimidated are the same for the person who feels frightened by the action.

Anyway the point I'm making is if I say I was intimidated, how can that be disproved

If a person has a genuine fear of dogs then any dog running at them no matter how the dog is acting could be intimidating to the person.