Dog Attack - - - Advice Needed, Please.

[questioner]

 

I find it difficult to believe many here would support your intention of interfering in someone else's life just because they have a pet (And probably a very small one at that)

 

What next...Signs on doors saying "May Contain Nuts"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Kindly show me were I have mentioned such a sign relating to "nuts".

 

Small pets?

 

What has size got to do with this particular issue? Do please explain as I am not sure where you are going in this instance. Incidently, some like to keep highly toxic spiders as pets but these are even smaller than small dogs. One for you to think one perhaps?

 

My concern is that no other deliverers get bitten, and especially children. You however seem to be quite happy to accept this situation in a comical and rather dismissive light.

 

I really cannot see why you are so very angry at me. If you are frustrated about oppressive political correctness then I can share such sentiments. However, this issue is not about this - its about people having aggressive animals that can and DO damage other people. This owner was taken to task by the warden as he apperently knew what the dog and like and he was made to erect a warning sign.

 

If I had an aninal that was prone is bite I would attach a wire guard to the letterbox so that no one ever got injured. Such a move would seem logical as a precaution.

Edited December 14, 2009 by questioner

[WelshMam2009]

In this case it most certainly would not have been prudent for the dog owner to erect a sign warning of the danger, that sign would no nothing except strengthen any case against them should the dog cause an injury.

 

The dog owner has no duty to place either a box or a guard over the letterbox, unless of course they want to protect or safeguard the mail that is delivered. The reason for that is obvious, a person delivering mail or leaflets does not have to put any part of their body through the letterbox and it would therefore be unreasonable to be expected to have to provide a box, had the OP delivered the leaflet in a safe and reasonable way then the injury would not have occurred.

 

Mossy

 

I have to disagree with you on this. Using the Guardian article again, for ease of reference...

 

For adult trespassers, in most cases the duty of care will be met if you put up a fence and display a notice warning of the danger. But children might not be able to read and understand the notice, so if you know they trespass on your land you shouldn't, for example, leave sharp tools or toxic weed killer lying around. If the children play with these things and hurt themselves you might have to pay compensation for their injuries.

 

The homeowner should take reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of any known danger.

[hightail]

the police should of at least investigated to check the dog concerned isn't an illegal breed

 

I don't see why unless the OP included such an allegation when reporting it.

[Mossycat]

I have to disagree with you on this. Using the Guardian article again, for ease of reference...

 

 

 

The homeowner should take reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of any known danger.

 

The homeowner DID take all reasonable steps...he kept his dog inside his own property, it was not running loose.

 

Your comments relating to mitigating the effects of any known danger would depend on your establishing that the dog owner was aware that his dog would bite anything pushed through the letterbox, since the dog owner was not displaying any warning signs it is therefore arguable that the dog owner would not and could not be reasonably expected to expect this situation.

 

If your argument was valid then every dog owner in the country would have to do either muzzle their dog in the confines of their own home or erect letter box guards, that is unreasonable, hence why you are wrong and hence why your argument is flawed.

 

End of

 

Mossy

[questioner]

I don't see why unless the OP included such an allegation when reporting it.

 

Its a bit hazy in fact and the officer was very sympathetic. He could see I was in great pain and my cloths were covered in blood.

 

Allegation?

 

Well yes - I did suggest to the officer that the animal was dangerous. In fact I dont think he really needed to be told this due to the mess I was making on his floor. We both agreed though that it could have been a small child .

[WelshMam2009]

This owner was taken to task by the warden as he apperently knew what the dog and like and he was made to erect a warning sign.

 

This strengthens your case, particularly if the Warden has evidence that no such sign existed previously. Also, it seems from this statement that the owner was aware of the dog's behaviour and hence, this also covers forseeability as well as negligence for failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate the danger.

 

If I had an aninal that was prone is bite I would attach a wire guard to the letterbox so that no one ever got injured. Such a move would seem logical as a precaution.

 

The cost of implementing such a measure is not prohibitive either which is something that would be taken into account when considering "reasonableness."

 

If you could get something in writing from the Warden then this would help your case.

 

However, there remains the legal costs (household insurance cover??); ability of third party to pay and potentially contributory negligence if it was assessed that you did not need to place your fingers through the letterbox.

 

Best of luck with this!!

[questioner]

If your argument was valid then every dog owner in the country would have to do either muzzle their dog in the confines of their own home or erect letter box guards, that is unreasonable, hence why you are wrong and hence why your argument is flawed.

 

No - your argument is unsound.

 

The vast majority of owners have safe dogs yet a few have ones that are dangereous. The dangerous ones should have wires guards inside just in case such events happen as they often do.

 

Protecting our species against potential injury by another species in logical and resonable.

[WelshMam2009]

The homeowner DID take all reasonable steps...he kept his dog inside his own property, it was not running loose.

 

Your comments relating to mitigating the effects of any known danger would depend on your establishing that the dog owner was aware that his dog would bite anything pushed through the letterbox, since the dog owner was not displaying any warning signs it is therefore arguable that the dog owner would not and could not be reasonably expected to expect this situation.

 

If your argument was valid then every dog owner in the country would have to do either muzzle their dog in the confines of their own home or erect letter box guards, that is unreasonable, hence why you are wrong and hence why your argument is flawed.

 

End of

 

Mossy

 

Not quite "End of" as the Dog Warden appears to agree with the need to erect a warning notice as that is what the owner was subsequently made to do!

 

This owner was taken to task by the warden as he apperently knew what the dog and like and he was made to erect a warning sign.

[Mossycat]

This strengthens your case, particularly if the Warden has evidence that no such sign existed previously. Also, it seems from this statement that the owner was aware of the dog's behaviour and hence, this also covers forseeability as well as negligence for failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate the danger.

 

 

 

The cost of implementing such a measure is not prohibitive either which is something that would be taken into account when considering "reasonableness."

 

If you could get something in writing from the Warden then this would help your case.

 

However, there remains the legal costs (household insurance cover??); ability of third party to pay and potentially contributory negligence if it was assessed that you did not need to place your fingers through the letterbox.

 

Best of luck with this!!

 

Oh FFS (For Flip's Sake) stop building up the hopes of the OP

 

The test of reasonableness has been passed, the dog was INSIDE the owners home, as such it was deemed under control.

 

If the dog has 'history' then the owner by keeping it inside is doing all that can be reasonably expected of him.

 

Getting anything in writing from the warden is nothing more than a waste of time and a false expectation, the facts speak for themselves and as injury solicitors have already said 'there is no case worth persuing'

 

Mossy

Edited December 14, 2009 by Mossycat
Language!

[Mossycat]

Protecting our species against potential injury by another species in logical and resonable.

 

Perhaps all the protection that was needed was the common sense not to push your fingers through a letter box.

 

Had it been more than your finger tip you might well have been nominated for a 'Darwin award'

 

Mossy

[questioner]

Welshmam - thanks for your valuable logic and common sense herein.

 

Much appreciated.

 

I may not persue this matter - I just wanted advice, nothing more. I do not think my terrible experience warrented such abusive posts from others. I can only imagine that these flamers have hidden agendas on this site, which are aimed at creating chaos.

 

I can als think of several aggressive banks/DCAs that would dearly welcome such abuse on this site for obvious reasons.......

 

End of!

[Mossycat]

The warden has no authority to insist that the dog owner erects a sign, by doing so the warden has now placed himself in a difficult position.

 

The warden now accepts that he himself thinks the dog is a danger, the owner can argue that he doesn't but erected the sign because the warden made him do it.

 

Should the dog attack anyone again (and I mean outside the home, not inside) and the sign is mentioned in support that the owner knew the dog was liable, then all the owner has to do is disagree and mention vicarious liability and point them towards the warden.

 

Mossy

[WelshMam2009]

Oh FFS stop building up the hopes of the OP

 

The test of reasonableness has been passed, the dog was INSIDE the owners home, as such it was deemed under control.

 

If the dog has 'history' then the owner by keeping it inside is doing all that can be reasonably expected of him.

 

Getting anything in writing from the warden is nothing more than a waste of time and a false expectation, the facts speak for themselves and as injury solicitors have already said 'there is no case worth persuing'

Mossy

 

What they said was...

 

I later contacted a no win no fee company who sent the file to a solicitor. The solicitor finally wrote to say that he could not help me due to the fact the owner had no insurance.

 

This does not mean that there is not a legitimate claim. Simply that there is a considerably reduced chance of fee recovery for the solicitor due to no insurance cover...which, incidentally, was a point I included in my post for due consideration by the OP.

[Mossycat]

End of!

 

Oh yes please !

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

What they said was...

 

 

 

This does not mean that there is not a legitimate claim. Simply that there is a considerably reduced chance of fee recovery for the solicitor due to no insurance cover...which, incidentally, was a point I included in my post for due consideration by the OP.

 

Yes and what that actually means is there is no insurance company to pay out for a nuisance claim, ie where it is cheaper to pay out than defend.

 

If there was a real chance of winning the solictor would persue the dog owner, but the dog owner is far more likely to defend such a claim.

 

Mossy

[hightail]

Also, it seems from this statement that the owner was aware of the dog's behaviour and hence, this also covers forseeability as well as negligence for failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate the danger

 

How could the owner 'forsee' that someone was going to stick their fingers through his letterbox at that time on that day. He presumably wasn't expecting, nor had any reason to expect anyone to come to the door.

 

I do sympathise with the OP but I don't believe the householder had any duty of care in this particular situation. It is a bit emotive because there is a dog involved. Take a different scenario without a dog. I've just vacuumed my house, lead is long enough for me to do 2+ rooms before I have to change to a different socket. If a stranger comes into my house uninvited, without prior agreement and trips over the lead while I'm vacuuming would they be able to claim against me?

[WelshMam2009]

Welshmam - thanks for your valuable logic and common sense herein.

 

Much appreciated.

 

I may not persue this matter - I just wanted advice, nothing more. I do not think my terrible experience warrented such abusive posts from others. I can only imagine that these flamers have hidden agendas on this site, which are aimed at creating chaos.

 

I can als think of several aggressive banks/DCAs that would dearly welcome such abuse on this site for obvious reasons.......

 

End of!

 

 

Thanks Questioner...I agree entirely!!

 

You have to do what you feel is best for you. Hope your injury doesn't affect you too much and you're able to move forward and put this unpleasant experience behind you.

 

Best wishes as always

[questioner]

Thanks Questioner...I agree entirely!!

 

You have to do what you feel is best for you. Hope your injury doesn't affect you too much and you're able to move forward and put this unpleasant experience behind you.

 

Best wishes as always

 

Thanks WM

 

One question to the pro bite/anti-wire guard-supporters.

 

What do you say to the parents of a potential child victim of such an animal when fingers are totally bitten off?

[hightail]

What do you say to the parents of a potential child victim of such an animal when fingers are totally bitten off?

 

What is 'such an animal'? From the information given so far, I'd suggest the dog involved is more likely to be a small terrier than the hound of the Baskervilles.

[questioner]

What is 'such an animal'? From the information given so far, I'd suggest the dog involved is more likely to be a small terrier than the hound of the Baskervilles.

 

Ah - size (and now presumption) again.

 

But you ignored the question.

[Mossycat]

What do you say to the parents of a potential child victim of such an animal when fingers are totally bitten off?

 

You say to the parents 'If you had brought your child up with the common sense not to stuff their fingers through a letterbox without knowing what is on the otherside of it then they would still have all 10 fingers and thumbs'

 

Mossy

[questioner]

You say to the parents 'If you had brought your child up with the common sense not to stuff their fingers through a letterbox without knowing what is on the otherside of it then they would still have all 10 fingers and thumbs'

 

Mossy

 

 

So you can guarantee that no child will ever push a thin, twisted sheet through any still letter box that gets stuck half-way ever again can you? Your utopia of perfection and self-assuredness must be incredibly comforting. Some of us lesser mortals slip on banana skins, eat food that is past its sell by date and occasioning get hospitalised by less than friendly animals they we don’t hear.

[Mossycat]

So you can guarantee that no child will ever push a thin, twisted sheet through any still letter box that gets stuck half-way ever again can you? Your utopia of perfection and self-assuredness must be incredibly comforting. Some of us lesser mortals slip on banana skins, eat food that is past its sell by date and occasioning get hospitalised by less than friendly animals they we don’t hear.

 

You started this thread because you wanted advice, I assumed by advice you wanted the truth as in hard facts. Now, because people have given you advice and told you what the reality is, you don't like it, but that's the way life (and law) is, so get over it.

 

1) The dog owner did nothing wrong

 

2) You were negiligent, your negilgence resulted in an injury to you.

 

I don't have a utopia of perfection, but in my world I don't stick my fingers through a letterbox when I'm delivering something.

 

Mossy

[hightail]

I wasn't deliberately ignoring the question. It simply isn't relevant. I did notice that large, potentially dangerous dogs had become a feature of the thread when you had never actually mentioned the breed involved so yes - the issue of presumption was in my mind. You never suggested that you believed the dog to be an illegal or 'dangerous' breed and the low letterbox you mentioned does rather suggest the likelihood of a smaller breed. The fact that the dog was reluctant to let go is a feature of terriers.

 

There is little point playing the 'what if' game. It wouldn't make a bit of difference to whether you have a legitimate claim or strengthen it if you had. Other than the night of Halloween (when I do believe there is a foreseeable chance of children at the door), I can't see why a child would be poking its fingers through a stranger's letterbox. Nor can I see why any householder should believe such a thing would happen.

[pin1onu]

It's my understanding a sign may not be enough to absolve you of liability should someone suffer injury or damage on your property. This issue has cropped up a few times on the Traffic Offense/Parking forum - one case concerned warning notices put up in a hotel warning of theft from vehicles - vehicles parked at own risk was the notice. They were still liable if they failed to warn vehicle owners that thieves were know to operate or they'd had a spate of thefts from cars.

 

In this case I think the owner had reasonably restrained his dogs. If however (and proving it would be difficult) the dog has a history of doing biting or attacking delivery people (e.g. the postman) then you could have a case.

 

Another angle that you may not have consider is the Health and Safety Act. If you were injured during the course of your employment then technically this should be reported to the HSE. Your employer is supposed to ensure you have sufficient skills and knowledge to highlight any dangers that you may encounter in the course of your work. You also have a duty to ensure that you get the necessary training. In this case it sounds as if your employer has been negligent (the Royal Mail obviously knows to brief its employees -why not someone delivering leaflets.) It sounds as though you were not warned of this danger. To some it will seem like commonsense but I will put my hands up and say I wouldn't have thought about it (and I delivered papers in my youth).

 

You may or may not have a case against the dog owner. I would suggest you look at case for compensation from your employer.