A banker whose dog left a cyclist brain damaged after running across his path has won the right to fight a ruling that she must pay him up to £50,000 in compensation.
During a vital case for dog owners and cyclists, Judge Alan Saggerson made scathing comments about both groups, saying each has a "sense of entitlement...to do exactly what they want to do".
Publishing boss David Crane sued banker Carina Read, 49, after he suffered a brain haemorrhage when falling off his bicycle, having braked hard to avoid her cocker spaniel, Felix, who was chasing a ball on Acton Green Common, west London, in March 2016.
The 71-year-old demanded up to £50,000 compensation, with his lawyers telling Central London County Court the dog owner was negligent in failing to properly control Felix, who should not have been allowed to run into his path.
But Ms Reid denied all blame, insisting that the accident was a "freak occurrence."
Judge Patrick Andrews ruled last year that Ms Read was negligent, having failed to call back Felix as he shot towards the path and the oncoming cyclist.
But now Judge Alan Saggerson has granted her permission to appeal against that ruling.
Telling the court that he doesn't have "any special liking for cyclists or dogs," he said of the fight for rights between the two groups.
"We all know that cyclists whether on path, road or common, have a sense of absolute entitlement to do whatever they want to do and we all know that dog owners also have a similar sense of entitlement to do exactly what they want to do irrespective of anybody else. It's quite a conundrum."
The seasoned cyclist from Chiswick, west London, was hurt when he toppled over the handlebars and struck his head after the dog cut across his path without warning.
Felix was chasing a ball thrown by Ms Read - an investment banker.
Ms Read claimed that Felix only ran in front of the bike because he was "stunned" after the thrown ball hit him on the head.
She also claimed Mr Crane was going too fast and should not have been riding on the path as it was out of bounds to cyclists in line with local bylaws.
Judge Andrews found against her last year, saying: "After considering all the facts and evidence, I find that on balance of probabilities, in failing to call back Felix, which she clearly had time to do, Ms Reid exposed Mr Crane to risk of injury."
Judge Saggerson told Ms Read's barrister Nigel Lewers last week: "You lost because the judge decided that the dog owner's duty of care included avoiding actions causing any accident involving personal injury."
But asking for permission to appeal, Mr Lewers argued the accident wasn't foreseeable and that Judge Andrews misunderstood the evidence.
Judge Andrews had made his decision on "a misunderstanding of the facts" because he said in his ruling that Ms Read had thrown the ball towards the path, which was neither Mr Crane's nor her case.
"This feeds into the question of probability. There wasn't a foreseeable risk of injury in this case," he said, adding that Mr Crane himself said in evidence that the accident was a "very unlikely occurrence".
Judge Saggerson gave Ms Read permission to appeal the decision against her and said he would hear the case himself - "not because I have any special liking for cyclists or dogs...but because I have read the entire file in some detail".
He said it had been for cyclist, Mr Crane, to prove that he had the right to cycle on a path controlled by by-laws.
Mr Crane, who has ridden a bike around London for over 40 years without mishap, told the court in evidence last year that he was cycling with care and at no more than five miles per hour when the dog ran in front of him.
He said the accident occurred in a "split second" and explained: "the first time I was aware of the dog was when it was right in front of me".
He denied claims that he was hurrying to get to work on time or that he was riding too fast, telling the court that he was incapable of speeding along on his bike because he had weighed 18 stone at the time.
The publishing executive sustained a "not insignificant brain injury", his barrister Helen Pooley said at the original trial, affecting his hearing, memory, concentration and ability to drive, plaguing him with headaches and impairing his sense of taste and smell.
Ironically, Mr Crane, who declared himself "100% a dog lover", said outside court that he has now taken to walking friends' dogs for exercise as he can no longer ride his bike or enjoy skiing.
According to court papers, Mr Crane's claim was for up to £50,000 compensation, although the exact amount he is due if he wins has not yet been decide.
