As I said before, I can see your argument. I can also see mine.But not for the negligent riding of the person following there would have been no damages
In the situation at hand, we actually have two separate events although very closely related in time.
The dog running into the road.
There was no damage caused by the dog interaction.
The collision between the two riders.
The damaged listed is due to this collision.
The dog didn’t cause the collision. The negligent operation by the following rider is what caused the damage.
Let me expand the situstion s bit and see if it changes your mind.
Dog runs into the road. Rider stops but falls over. There is no collision and no damage.
1 minute later a second rider comes onto the scene and hits the rider still sitting in the roadway trying who is trying to calm himself.
I’m sure you’ll agree the dog is not at fault for the secondary collision. Now shorten the time to 30 seconds.. Dog still not st fault, correct? Now 5 seconds? 2 seconds?
At what point do you want to place the negligent actions of a third party onto the dog incident?
While you want to argue if not for the dog the damage to the bike and op wouldn’t have occurred I’ll make the argument that if not for the negligent actions of the following rider there would have been no damages regardless of the dog incident.
I think contributory or comparative negligence may have a place here but I don’t see it as an absolute placing all fault on the dog owner.