Injured dog

Press, 14 March 1987, Page 20

Injured dog

Sir,—L. Harley’s version of the unfortunate accident to the pet dog (March 12) seems a little one-sided. I would have thought that, as the owners of the dog, it was their legal responsibility to ensure the dog was under proper control at all times. In my opinion, they may have themselves to blame for this incident. It appears to me that the driver in this situation did everything reasonably possible to advise the owners of an injury to their unsupervised dog. How L. Harley can judge, conclusively and accurately, from skid marks, and say the car was speeding, is beyond me. Has he had experience in this field? — Yours, etc., PATRICK J. BARBER. March 12, 1987.

Sir, —L. Harley’s letter (March 12) raises more the question of control of dogs than the injuries sustained to them. As one or two dogs per family seems to be the norm, it would appear obvious that there must be good supervision of them or the increasing dog problem we have already is going to get worse. Dogs are meant to be contained on properties, not loose on the streets where they could cause a traffic accident or attack rubbish bags. If L. Harley had observed these rulqs then the pet would not perhaps be needing veterinary care. — Yours, etc., D. R. BUSSEY. March 12, 1987. Sir,—ln response to L. Harley’s letter (March 9) I, as a dog lover and owner, would like to commend the driver of the car who stopped after having struck the dog in Bordesley Street and even followed the dog up the drive to make sure he got home. The driver deserves praise, not criticism from L. Harley who, instead of keeping the dog safely confined while unsupervised, allowed him to wander in the street. The skid marks mean nothing as a dog can run so suddenly in front of a vehicle that it is necessary to slam on the brakes. L. Harley can feel fortunate not to be paying damages to the driver of the car involved and may now, hopefully, take better care of the dog in future. — Yours, etc., C. MARTIN. March 13, 1987.