Quote Originally Posted by Savra View Post
I might be the only opposite opinion here but........ Being a dog owner I don't think it would even occur to me to hold the owners of the dog responsible. If the dog ran out and got hit by a car should the owner of the car hold the owners of the dog responsible? Or would the owners of the dog hold the car owner responsible for going too fast to be able to stop in time? If it was a kid who ran out then who would be responsible? Being a bicyclist I feel I have to take some risk and at the same time, responsibility, to keep an eye out for such dangers. I'm constantly scanning to make sure no car doors are opening, kids are running, etc. that might put me or someone else at risk. If it were a deer running out in front of me I wouldn't ask for the deer to compensate me, same thing for a rabbit, raccoon etc. My first thought when you said the woman offered to pay was one of surprise that she was being so nice. Now, if the dog ran out to attack you then I could see how the owners did not have control of a dangerous dog.
Anyway - like I said - I'm probably of the minority here and maybe there is something I'm seeing in the story that would put the entire blame on the dog.
I totally disagree. The blame is not on the dog; it's on the dog owner. Dogs should be restrained AT ALL TIMES--either by a fence or leash. If an owner fails to restrain a dog then, yes, they should be liable for any damages that the dog causes. Yes, we take risks as cyclists, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't be held responsible for any injury we sustain. What if you're hit by a car that was driving negligently? By your logic, the motorist shouldn't be held responsible because you assumed some risk. Surely you don't agree with that.