• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Dog ran in front of cyclists from home

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

quincy

Senior Member
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.

Incident #1.
The dog running into the road.
There was no damage caused by the dog interaction.

Incident #2.
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.
As I said before, I can see your argument. I can also see mine. :)
 


adjusterjack

Senior Member
Pennsylvania (where the incident occurred) does not hold a dog owner strictly liable by statute. Either common law negligence or negligence per se has to be proven. One of the elements of both is causality.

Plaintiff always must prove that the negligent act was the cause of the harm suffered. See Toolan ex rel. Toolan v. Cerulli, 2006 WL 4642834, 81 Pa. D. & C. 4th 225, 233 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Monroe Cnty. Dec. 14, 2006) (stating an example of a meritorious defense “where it is asserted that plaintiff’s injury is not the result of defendant’s negligence, and that the injuries complained of occurred as a result of an unforeseeable event.”)

In this case the unforeseeable event was the OP's husband following her too closely and failing to control his bike, thus colliding with her. The dog had nothing to do with that any more than a child running across the street would have.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Pennsylvania (where the incident occurred) does not hold a dog owner strictly liable by statute. Either common law negligence or negligence per se has to be proven. One of the elements of both is causality.




In this case the unforeseeable event was the OP's husband following her too closely and failing to control his bike, thus colliding with her. The dog had nothing to do with that any more than a child running across the street would have.
I understand what both you and justalayman are saying. The dog owner might argue the same. And Frauswan's husband could be held liable for the damage to his wife's bike.

Then again, the dog was loose which caused a chain reaction.
 
Sponsored Ad

Top