In article said:"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Ryan,
I am somewhat disappointed that our views are in opposition as I find your posts to be among the
ones that are well thought out.
I too, am disappointed. I have decided to devote some of my valuable time to correcting your views,
in order that joy and harmony may reign once again. 🙂
Note that most of my comments below reflect (as best as I can) the legal issues. I'll have a little
note later on what I think the moral issues are, which seems to me what your greatest concern is
with this case.
Quoted message said:The issue, as I see it, is that this guy wants someone to pay for the _cosmetic_ damage to his
clothes and bike. If he were injured and had required medical attention or had a part damaged to
the point where it required replacement (and I don't mean a broken spoke, either), I would say
there is merit in pursuing recompense.
Well, cosmetic damage is damage. it lowers resale, and in the case of clothing, almost certainly
reduces the usable life of the garment. The point is there are real financial losses being suffered,
or to put it another way, an outside factor in the control of another person caused damage to his
person and property.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:What if you had crashed on a wet road?
Nah, wet roads are a standard circumstance. The legal presumption is that you should either
have enough skill to negotiate a wet road, or you should slow down, or you should stay off the
wet road.
Since there is no licensing required to show proficiency or judgement whilst riding a bike, I'm
not sure what legal presumption that would fall under, especially for children. The point is, if
you crash on a wet road and scrape a few parts, you live with it.
It's implicit in using the road. That is, by using a road, you assume responsibility for using it
properly. The nature of roads is that, by acts of God, they covered with rain and even snow. You
have to, as a person using the road, decide whether it's safe to use it on your chosen vehicles.
There are times when it is not safe to take most vehicles out on the roads.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Your bike still works fine.
Sure, but the dog isn't bloody well supposed to be there! Basically, the owner is negligent
because the dog, as it were, wasn't being operated in accordance with the law and caused a road
hazard. We should all try not to hit dogs, but the onus is on the owner to not let their dog run
free, lest they do something stupid (as dogs will do) like run in front of a car. You have to
take responsibility for your property.
I agree, I just think given the (lack of) severity of the damage, he should be of the same
viewpoint about his equipment as his road rash.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Your bike parts and clothes, if you tried to sell them on ebay or rbm
would
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:be worth a fraction of $750 even before your crash.
$750 is the opening offer.
Meaning what?
Meaning that that's the amount it would cost to make things right, or to get him back to where he
was before someone neglected to tie up their dog. If the dog owner wants to settle things simply, a
lesser amount might suffice. But the complete damages probably do amount to something like that
amount, strictly speaking.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Although racing implies a recognition of potential harm to your
equipment,
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:you wouldn't expect to be reimbursed in that situation.
Racing is an explicitly no-fault activity. By signing the waiver and lining up beside the other
racers, you are consenting to the agreement that accidents are just that. Even so, if someone in
the race did something deliberate or flagrantly negligent (say, shoved their pump in your spokes
or pushed you bodily off the course), you probably would have the possibility of a civil claim
if not criminal charges. A few years ago an NHL hockey player got charged with assault in
Vancouver after he deliberately swung his stick at the head of another player on the ice.
Something like that could mean the end of the sport as we know it. I'm sure you could imagine that
the plaintiff's attorney would name not only the 'attacking' rider, but also the race organizer,
officials, and race sponsors as defendants. It's all in the name of obtaining a larger award.
No, because the normal activities of a bike race (or a hockey game, or a boxing match) are not
covered. If two boxers engage in a sanctioned boxing match, and one badly injures the other, well,
that's a normal part of the event. In bicycle racing, if someone crashes, and they take you down,
and your wheel bends (as happened to another rider in my Thursday night beer-league mountain bike
race) well, that's racing. But hey, he got the crash prize. And in hockey, if one player drills
another player with a hard but clean bodycheck, and the other player staggers off the ice, injured,
that's part of the game.
But these are all sporting events. Riding on the road in normal circumstances is not a sporting
event, and even if it was, being attacked by the neighbour's dog is not part of normal driving
conditions.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:BTW, if you went to the trouble to make and receive a claim against the dog's owners (who
probably aren't too happy with you or any riders at
this
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:point anyway), had you considered giving the replaced items to the dog's owners/insurance
company or are you just interested in profiting from
the
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:mishap?
It's not a case of profiting from the mishap. Like any other tort case, the plaintiff is trying
to get the defendant to make things right, which is basically a case of compensating for damage
to property and person.
And tort cases are known for frivolity and excessive claims, thus there are many states in the US
who are enacting tort reform for that reason.
I am not sure why you think this is either frivolous or excessive, except that you seem to think
that the damage wasn't real because the parts were not damaged beyond operability. I am curious as
to whether you take the same attitude when someone hits your car. I tend to ask them to repair the
body panels as well as the mechanical damage.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I can't make an argument about how the courts would find in deciding how much damage was done to
all these parts. They might decide to pro-rate the damage, they might decide the accident was
partly the cyclist's fault and award only a percentage of the damages, or they might decide that
the owner ought to also cough up for pain-and-suffering damages.
Not to mention determining the value (depreciation) of the original parts, damage notwithstanding.
Considering the relationship between bikes and cars, a jury might not award much at all. We can
only speculate, given the information at hand. We don't even know if the dog was regularly loose
and was an expected hazard or if the rider was taunting the dog (not that it makes it right, but
it wouldn't make a jury very sympathetic to the rider).
Okay, if the dog was regularly loose, that may make it worse, especially if the owner had been
warned before.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:The moral of the story--and I say this as a great friend of man's best friend--is that you have
to keep your dog under control. If you can't uphold this as a moral responsibility, then you
will find it may become a financial responsibility.
As I said before, I agree with you. But remember, we're talking about "parts that were scraped up
as a result of the accident, derailer, skewer, pedals, seat, tape, jersy and shorts". How many of
us own bikes where the derailleur, skewers, and pedals are free of scrapes?
I decided to take this Pepsi Challenge. My well-used Pinarello has a pretty worn frame, with peeling
decals and numerous small paint chips, plus marks on one chainstay where a previous owner had a
kickstand installed (!).
The rear derailleur has only the tiniest of scrape marks on it. The fder is pristine except for road
grime and chain oil. The skewers have no scratches worth noting. The pedals are scraped to hell, but
they were used when I bought them and I beat up my previous pedals very badly indeed, thanks to my
lazy cornering.
Earlier in this thread, someone suggested what would have happened if it had been a wild dog,
coyote, or a deer. Well, that would have been a case of too bad, so sad. You can't sue God, and wild
animal attacks are acts of God (apparently, an Old Testament kinda God, in this case). But I would
note that few wild animals will vector in on and attack cyclists. They generally regard them as
trouble, not prey. "Tame" dogs tend to be different.
Now, as to the question of whether or not the cyclist should sue. First, the question of
responsibility must be settled. If you get distracted and run over a sleeping dog, well, that might
be legally the owner's fault, but I doubt many of us could muster the gumption to sue in such a
case. But I think none of us would have a problem with suing the owner if the dog chased and
attacked the cyclist (a situation I once experienced on a motorcycle). If nothing else, one feels a
certain need, as the French phrase would have it, to "encourage the others." That is, the threat and
example of a dog owner being sued for letting their dog run free is a useful corrective for other
owners who might otherwise be lazy about letting their dog run free. A fine is one thing, but a
civil suit is quite another.
But ultimately, is this cyclist wrong to sue? Well, you might argue that he's suing over
trivialities, and with respect to damage he could have avoided. The fact is, the accident happened,
despite the efforts of both dog owner and cyclist, neither of whom has much interest in causing such
a situation. Given that reality, both are involved, and assessment of responsibility for the damage
is a reasonable act.
As for the triviality of the damage, I disagree. As I said above, damaged clothing wears faster and
is less useful, and similarly for scraped components. None of this even considers possible resale or
the simple aesthetic concern that before this accident, the equipment was probably not damaged.
This is not a case of hurt feelings, or obvious negligence by the cyclist. If you get run into by an
owned dog, that means that someone was irresponsibly letting the dog run free. The OP isn't even
suggesting a "pain and suffering" claim, which would be well within his legal rights, but in this
case furthe suggests he isn't claiming for anything even remotely like frivolous damage.
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
