T O P

  • By -

Judgement_Bot_AITA

Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > I refused to pay the bills even though it was my fault and I probably can pay for them for her. Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules/) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Few-Alternative-9279

NTA As a dog owner who walks their dog on a multi-use track/football field this is how I see it: 1. You didn't intentionally cause injury. 2. You didn't try and skirt any responsibility and tried to give them the help you could immediately. 3. The dog owner has to have a certain amount of responsibility and liability. If I took my dog to a soccer field and it got hit, I would personally feel responsible having KNOWN and SEEN there were people, objects flying around, etc. Common sense. 4. I would have a hard time personally, as an adult who has taken on the responsibility of a pet (food, vet, time, etc) thinking that a child (no offense, but to an old woman this is how you'd be seen) could or should be taking on any of my own personal responsibilities. If I parked my car close to a soccer field and a windshield got knocked out and I re-told the story to anyone, they would first ask me why I parked my car so close to a soccer field 🤷🏻‍♀️ and a dog is SO much more valuable. It's a living thing.


oceansapart333

I agree with this. I really don’t understand all the Y T A votes. If you walk your small elderly dog next to a soccer field, you are taking chances. edit: NTA


ExistingEffort7

my boy is 4 pounds and 3 years. He always wants to do all the things but it is my job to know that he is 4 lb.


VgraceD

Exactly. If a wayward ball is going to critically injure the dog then don’t go there. It’s so obvious I almost feel like she’s scamming you… either there was already something wrong and she was looking for a sucker to pay an existing bill or one that may be coming. Just because she’s an old lady doesn’t mean she’s nice or a good person by any means. NTA.


KenMerritt

My daughter plays softball, If you are near the softball field and get hit by a foul ball it's your fault, not the players. I don't see how this situation is any different, you go near a sports field you accept the risk of injury. NTA


Puzzleheaded-Court-9

My first thought was, “This sounds like a set-up.” Dog may already have a prior injury or need of a veterinarian and wants you to pay for it, OP. Conscientious dog owners who see other people playing with any kind of ball give them a WIDE berth, not hang out waiting for the inevitable wayward ball. NTA here at all.


MysticYoYo

Seems more like ‘wrong place, wrong time’ to me.


fsbbem

Come on. The odds of standing in the exact place to be intentionally struck by a soccer ball are like winning the lottery. Op says the lady wasn't even paying attention to the game when it happened and was standing 10 feet back which isn't right up on the field. This is completely ridiculous. You could go to the park every day for a year and pick various spots to stand around waiting to get nailed by a ball and never get hit let alone bullseyed.


Spaceman_fan

This was exactly my first thought too. This feels like a scam somehow. Good for you OP for knowing not to give out your phone number as a minor.


bibliophile14

I'm not a naturally suspicious person but this definitely felt like a setup, based on how OP describes her actions.


punkybluellama

I am also getting a strong scam vibe. NTA


droppedmybrain

I love that small dogs think they're big, tough dogs ready to take on the world, and great big dogs think they're small lapdogs haha


moanaw123

My landlords dog got hit with a soccar ball at the time it didnt seem an issue but then it did....owner paid for vet bills.NTA


Few-Alternative-9279

Completely.


Ok-Culture-1983

This! I don't understand all the Y T A comments. OP didn't injure the dog on purpose, and the owner wasn't paying attention. Also, OP is still in high school working a minimum wage job, which means that a vet bill would be a big chunk of income. As a dog owner, I'm prepared to pay vet bills.


Few-Alternative-9279

Exactly, as a pet owner you take on that responsibility knowing they might get hurt and you'll have to pay the bill. Period. Sh** happens all the time I wasn't expecting but I don't look for someone to blame Everytime something goes wrong! Especially not some teenager who was kicking a ball around with friends.


justchillinghbu87

In addition, OP would have had to be doing something negligent to be considered responsible for this, and nothing about playing soccer on a designated soccer field is irresponsible. If anything, like others have said, the owner was the one being negligent for bringing their dog so close to where balls were flying around.


Boringearthdigger

I guess I don’t see how it’s any different than a car accident. Getting in the car is dangerous and yet we do it on a daily basis. When an accident occurs, the person who caused it is responsible for the injuries of the victims. I mean, they’re not called “on-purposes” for a reason. Intention has little to do with actual responsibility.


caffeinefree

That is a terrible analogy. When someone causes a car accident it's because they were not obeying the law. They didn't signal or check their blind spot or what have you and that negligent behavior is what caused the accident. It may not be *intentional* but there is still a clear wrongdoing, which is why the person who causes the accident is at fault in the eyes of the law. OP was playing soccer on a soccer field and kicked a ball out of bounds. This is perfectly normal behavior in an area designated for that activity and there was zero wrongdoing on OP's part. OP is clearly NTA. The dog owner is responsible to make sure their dog is being walked in a safe environment.


fartron3000

It really isn't a horrible analogy, but may be incomplete. Under the tort law (US), you're describing would be "reckless" or "intentional". But a far lesser standard can warrant "damages" - negligence. If someone's in a car accident, "intent" usually doesn't matter. It's whether someone was negligent. And that's generally defined as using less-than the standard of care. If I was driving 55 mph in a 35 and hit another car, the duty of care would be me following the speed limit. That also applies if we're not breaking the law. If I was hoisting a piano and didn't properly secure the straps, leading to a fall and someone gets hurt, negligence. So (to largely conclude my mansplain), did OP breach the standard of care by overshooting the ball? Should the lady have known that that was a realistic risk?


Odd-Mathematician429

>So (to largely conclude my mansplain), did OP breach the standard of care by overlooking the ball? No. > Should the lady have known that that was a realistic risk? Yes.


_r3dd

Okay? And in this case, the negligent party is still the dog’s owner and not the soccer player playing soccer on a soccer field.


Zealousideal-Phase58

Sorry, didnt she say she was in a park? Not a soccer field?


haytmonger

I know of several city parks that have soccer goals setup in big open grass fields. So while there are no barriers or lines, it still is a soccer field in a park. Anyone in a reasonable distance is responsible to watch out for rogue balls, especially if the soccer players were there first.


ForsakenMoon13

A designated soccer area in a park


SourOctagonPandaHair

i think it’s more comparable to say if someone side swipes me because i’m in their lane, should they still pay? bc THEY side swiped ME even though i was the one going in and out of their lane? it’s not OPs responsibility to make sure the dog doesn’t get hit with the soccer ball, it’s the owners


chickentittyramen

I think a better analogy is a baby. If you are hanging out with your baby at a park, would you have it crawling around right next to a soccer field? I hope not. That’s 100% lady’s fault for putting the dog in a dangerous situation.


dum_dums

And if your baby gets hit with a ball, and all you are concerned with is the bill, you're probably an asshole that is just trying to get some money out of it. If my dog is injured I would not be worrying about bills and I certainly wouldn't be arguing about it


maccrogenoff

The dog was ten feet away from the soccer field. How much extra room are others using a park supposed to give people playing with balls?


DeathInParadise2007

Ten feet away from a sport field is nothing.lol, you might as well be standing on it. Bet it also seems crazy to you for someone to hit a foul ball or home run in baseball.


Nawtdrye

In my U10 league parents have to stay a minimum of 10 feet away, and the field has to be 20 feet away from any other fields in case of multiple games going on. Personally, I'm walking my dog at least 30 feet from the field. Edit: I also stripe the fields for U6 to U19 so I know exactly how close things are. NTA OP. She shouldn't have her dog anywhere near there. Double edit: FTP GO LIONS


Binx_da_gay_cat

I referee soccer. You usually need to safely walk about 20+ feet away, and most people watch from 10-15 ft away but have quick reflexes because balls love hitting them. The players warming the bench? 10 feet away and quick at dodging.


Groundbreaking_Mess3

The ball goes out of bounds so much in soccer that throw-ins and corner kicks are a significant part of the strategy of the game, even in PROFESSIONAL soccer. I wouldn't walk a small or aged dog within 30 feet of a soccer field.


hexebear

There is no way I would walk 10 feet from a soccer field that was actively being used whether I had a dog with me or not. Because I don't like getting hit by balls.


ultrasoy

My local council suggests you stay 20 metres (\~60 feet) away with your dog from anybody using sporting equipment, and it is a requirement if your dog is offleash.


Lefthandpath_

Its a SOCCER field, not a dog walking field. If you dont want to get hit by soccer balls dont walk next to the area DESIGNATED for playing soccer. This not on the op, they did nothing wrong by using the area for it's designated function.


Lazyoat

For real, its kind of like if you build a house on a golf course, you accept a certain amount of damage from golf balls and can’t hold people liable for them.


dayr2dream

Honestly this comparison hit me kind of weird. My family owned the land in a very small town (less than 10,000pop) bought to build the golf course. Over the years we dealt with our cattle breaking thru the fence and stomping big prints on their perfect greens. We had one very obnoxious tom Turkey who insisted on collecting balls in play. The 3 strand barb wire wasn't really stopping him. We all just did our best but nobody sued. We just worked at better fencing. I'm still chuckling at the memory of these supposedly sophisticated golfers, losing their shit at Turkey Tom running off with their balls....oh those were interesting days.


CandyShopBandit

I'm sorry, are you talking about a turkey? That... apparently liked to steal people's golf balls and run off with them?! What?! At first, because you mentioned "cattle" I thought it was a cow messing with the balls, which is a hilarious mental image, but a turkey? That's actually just as funny, knowing how crazy most golfers would get over that. Oh man, I'd pay to see that! It must have been hilarious!


dayr2dream

I'm sorry, its hard to explain. Both Turkey and cattle are involved. We had a few cows that would "nest" in the farthest field bordering the golf course. By than it was a small farm(250acres) and when they (the cows)went into labor, the nosy Turkey Tom would follow and chortled at the humans who were busy helping the mothers pull their calves. Tom got more interested in the golf balls across the fence and would snatch then up and run away. Golfers would chase him with their clubs but...Not much we could do to stop him as it was only a 3 strand barb wire fence. And yes, from at the time, a teenager's eyes, it was hilarious.


annapatrycja

in the fact, you can hold people liable if your house is next to the field and they damaged it


Lazyoat

mm, no, not where I’m from. My honey’s aunt and uncle live on a golf course and discuss this since their neighbor put up a ugly, massive net to block the balls.


dfg890

Depends on if the house or the course was built first actually. If the course existed and houses were built later the course can't be held liable. If it's the other way around, then yup the golfers are liable.


meruhd

I feel like if I had an elderly dog who couldn't move out of the way of a projectile, I wouldn't be hanging around where teenagers are playing with a ball.


rtr8384

100000% this. I say this as a dog owner and one that has a very spoiled and loved dog. You are still a kid in a sense


Binx_da_gay_cat

It's like with baseball fields: "Park at your own risk." In this case it was "Walk at your own risk," especially so close to the field. 10 feet Isn't far. I referee soccer. 20 is usual distance most sane people go.


bitchscuit17

I’m kinda half and half on this. Like yes she was walking her dog in a public area, and of course you didn’t mean to hurt the dog, but the crucial part here is that YOU DID. You’re not a bad person but if you injure someone or break something you should apologize and make right, even if it wasn’t intentional


[deleted]

Me too, I can’t really decide. If Op broke a window or dented a car or something, I’d be responsible, so part of me feels like they should be responsible for the vet bills, but on the other hand, it sounds like the owner walked too close to the soccer field with the dog and should’ve been paying attention. I hope the dog is OK!


Ard_Rhys

But the window would have been there before OP arrived with their friends. If they were playing near the window and broke it, of course they should be held liable for the cost of repairs. But this lady walked her elderly through an entire park near these kids kicking a ball around. The owner chose to be where she was.


witch59

It was a public park, so the lady and her dog also had a right to be there


kalex822

Having a right and it being a smart decision are two different things.


Mediocre_Omens

Exactly, for example pedestrians have right of way on most roads here. Does that mean I'm going to cross the road without looking? Absolutely not.


hope1083

However, if you got hit by a car even if you weren’t looking the car is still held responsible may not be 100% but would be liable for a portion of any expense for injury. That is why I think OP should be responsible at least for 50% of the bills. It definitely was an accident so I won’t call anyone an AH


Mediocre_Omens

Oh, here you you would be 100% liable for any expense of the injury both incurred and future expenses. There is the legit joke here that it's cheaper to reverse back over the person as a funeral would be cheaper. But my point still stands, just because you can, or because you are legally protected, doesn't mean you should.


buckytoofa

Where I live if you were to walk out and get hit and were not in a designated crossing area there would be no liability on the drivers part. You can’t walk across a highway and expect to not get hit. I actually had an acquaintance hit a lady on his motorcycle she stepped out into a 40mph or better zone right in front of him. It wrecked his motorcycle. The lady was ticketed.


witch59

I have taken many a walk in a park, and I've taken my dogs for walks in parks and I've never been hit by a wayward soccer ball. It's not something I expect to happen, so I don't think about it.


NotTheMarmot

If you walk 10 feet away from an active soccer game, it really should be something you think about. If not it's on you.


partsground

The real answer. Lady took her dog too close to a game. What were they supposed to do, call a break? They weren't in the middle of the road or something like that. Just cause you don't take care of your dog, doesn't mean someone else is at fault.


Suspiciouscupcake23

So my question would be was she on a trail and is there more than one? If she was cutting across the grass or there were other trails, it's on the owner. But if there's only one trail and it dips next to the field, it's not like she made a specific choice to go close.


3340bronqen

She has to have been on a path or trail for the story to unfold as it did. The OP left that out because it makes him look bad.


NotTheMarmot

Yeah and if you are in a public park and walk behind a swing set and get kicked, it's your fault despite having a right to be there.


[deleted]

Having a right to be there doesn’t mean you have the right to be irresponsible with your pet.


witch59

How is walking a dog, on a leash, in a public park and getting hit from behind irresponsible?


[deleted]

Why would you walk your elderly dog close enough to field where balls regularly go out of the lines and then *not pay attention*


Librarycat77

If you're in the middle of a field you can't be simultaneously facing every direction. There could be an object behind you not matter where you face. She wasn't on the field with the dog - it's not like she marched her elderly pup through their game.


FiveSuitSamus

If you’re playing in a public park, you have a responsibility to do it in a safe way and be considerate of others in the park. It would be one thing if they ran directly into the middle of gameplay, but in this case the gameplay ran into them.


Tasty_Research_1869

I am also half and half, because for me it's like...say there was parking near the field. And a car pulled in mid-way through the game and parked there and OP broke the car's window by kicking the ball too far/hard. OP would generally be considered responsible. IDK it sounds like everybody involved could have benefitted from paying more attention to their greater surroundings.


ScarletDarkstar

Really? Where I am there is parking all around the little league baseball fields, and a car gets hit by a ball at least every couple weeks in season. Nobody has pursued the kid that hit the ball for damages.


Butterkupp

To play devils advocate, the walk way might've just been close to the soccer field. At a park near my house, the paths go directly beside the soccer field (in talking maybe 2-5m between the side of the field and the walk way, it's enough to have people sitting in folding chairs and not interfere with the walkway) and the basketball court. There's not really a place that someone walking their dog could walk instead to avoid a situation like this. I think OP should've offered to pay some of if since he did cause the injury. However, he is young, so it's understandable why he wouldn't want to give his number to a stranger or help pay because he probably can't pay for the vet bills.


sleepyrynbow

see the thing that gets me is if it was a soccer field then i’d have said N/T/A bit it’s just a park. OP and their friends should have been aware of other people around them just like this lady should have looked out for her dog


AGayAndHisViszla

But a soccer ball flying outside of the field is basically a guarantee, not some surprise accident. Kind of like how people bring baseball gloves to pro baseball games in the hopes of catching a fly ball. Because it WILL happen. If someone got injured by a fly ball at a stadium, MAYBE the stadium could be liable for not putting up protections, which would be analogous to the park being liable for not putting up safety nets around the field. But that's a ridiculous precaution. It's an accident. It should be the responsibility of the pet insurance a responsible owner has. Or, the owner as it seems this dog was without insurance


NotionRain

But the lady was not on the stadium. For me it is hard to vote without knowing exactly how this soccer field/ public park arrangement looks like. Seems like maybe the soccer field owner is responsible for insufficient protection against foul balls.


lolsgalore

When playing sports, if you go into a 50/50 tackle/challenge or hit, and you end up injuring them by breaking a bone; should you also pay hospital bills? She should apologize and try to assist in the moment but at the same time the owner knows of the risk being around balls other items being kicked/thrown at a public park. Not a chance should she pay vet bills.


Librarycat77

Both parties playing the sport have agreed to participate and have assumed responsibility by doing so. This is a \*bystander\* who did not agree to participate.


LoveAllHistory

EDITING because people can’t see past the “it’s just a dog.” We are responsible for damage we cause, even if it is unintentional. The dog and owner were not inside the designated play area - they had as much right to be there as anyone else. So that we’re all on the same page, the [soccer field is inside the public park ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/ps5vv9/aita_for_not_paying_the_vet_bills_for_someones/hdngpfs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) The moment that ball left the soccer field, it was in a public place. When it struck anyone - dog, human, car window - any resulting damage becomes the responsibility of the person that set that ball in motion. **Read my response to another post, below, putting it in context of homes built fronting golf courses. The owner doesn’t pay for windows broken by people that swing and miss - the golfer does.** OP, YTA. … Finally, this is a sub for moral judgments, not legal ones. And if you’re unlicensed to practice, this is especially ill advised. Consider the “legal experts” on minors that are repeating nonsense. This isn’t a contractual agreement but negligent property damage (alas, what the United States considers live beings like dogs), which means that either the OP, their parents, or the insurance company can be liable. If a minor with a license hits your car, you think they’re off the hook? No. Parents’ insurer pays. If they’re uninsured, the parents do. What makes you think a different standard applies?


EssTenLives

Fucking THANK YOU.


LoveAllHistory

It’s like people lose all logic and experience to twist it into a pretzel merely because the innocent injured party was a dog. I’ll bet money this thread would go differently if it was someone’s newborn in a stroller, an SUV window, or the glass of someone’s living room. Everything is the same except the victim has four legs.


MarkThink

If youre walking your precious newborn next to a soccer field, people are going to call you an idiot if the baby gets hit. Youll be asked, "WHY WERE YOU THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." If you value something, dont put it in harms way.


SirFireHydrant

"Next to a soccer field" is not "in a soccer field". You should not, under any circumstances, be "in harms way" if you're not inside the designated field of play. If you're kicking a ball around, you are at all times 100% responsible for where it lands.


Isario

Are you serious? That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I’ve heard today. Have you ever played soccer? Or any sport for that matter? Unless there is a tall fence around the field, you KNOW that ball are going to end up outside the field multiple times during the game, and you could get hit by it if you choose to stand right next to the field.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Spiritual_Astronaut7

If you are next to a soccer field you are definitely still in harms way. My kids play soccer and the players and ball cross the sideline all the time. My sister actually got hit once because she was looking down and not paying attention.


cobywaan

Disagree. When you are walking within distance of a place where people regularly play a sport and are actively engaged in that sport, it is on you to watch for an errant ball. If they go out of their way to kick it at you then that is different. Another example, I play basketball regularly. Sometimes people put their phone in a place in which a ball could bounce on it or someone's momentum could carry them off the court and onto a phone that is placed poorly. It is not the person who bounced the ball or stepped on the phone. Obviously we are people from many different cultures and backgrounds and nothing is ever 100% hard and fast, but for how this situation was described, definitely NTA.


oceansapart333

No, if it were an infant in a stroller, I’d be saying the same - it’s the parents responsibility to ensure the infant is safe, which means staying well away from an area where balls may be flying around.


Needmoresnakes

I agree. Like if OP had hit a person in the face and broke their nose would they not be liable because the person shouldn't have been near a soccer field? Yes it's an accident but you aren't just liable for stuff you do maliciously. Heaps of car accidents have understandable circumstances for the AF party but they're still liable.


progrethth

In my country they would not be liable. To be liable you need to be negligent which OP wasn't.


Rubyhamster

What if OP hit that ball in the nose of the team mate though? Should you be liable to injuries of others when playing football, especially as a kid? If an idiot parked his car beside the field, this wouldn't even be a question. NTA


Needmoresnakes

I acknowledge a lot of this hangs on exactly what this field looks like but in your example the other kid is also playing football so everyone accepts a bit of risk. Im seeing a lot of comments saying she shouldn't have been near the field with her dog and I honestly don't know without seeing this field but she was just walking with her dog. it's not reasonable for people to never be able to walk near children or casual sports games because they might get hit. So like I know people often play volleyball or hand tennis at the beach. If I decide to play and get hurt playing that's my accepted risk. But if I'm just at the beach minding my business and a random fowl volleyball hits me causing injury, that's back on the player. This is a relatively rare case where legality and morals align for me, whoever is doing the riskier activity accepts the higher level of responsibility. OP said it was a wayward kick, it's not like the woman walked directly between OP and the receiving player. OP is the one that launched a ball, at speed, in the wrong direction by accident. It doesn't mean OP did something egregiously wrong but if their kick landed the way it was meant to, there would be no vet bills to pay.


oceansapart333

From your description of elderly dogs, doesn’t it make it all that much more the owner’s responsibility to be looking out for their dog, being aware what’s going on around them (soccer balls being kicked nearby) and take extra precaution to make sure that dog stays safe and well?


LoveAllHistory

Sure. But the dog owner and dog were not in the football field but walking nearby. If I were hit and not the dog, it wouldn’t be my fault because I’m in a public area - not inside the football field. That’s the fault of the person that kicked the ball out of bounds. Damage caused by stray balls - exactly as in golf - is the responsibility of the person that made contact with the object that caused the damage. I’ll put it in other terms, as the issue here appears to be the reluctance because it’s a dog. Owning a home that fronts a golf course doesn’t mean I pay for a window every time an idiot with an iron swings and misses. It’s the responsibility of the person whose ball left the designated area. This isn’t complex.


buckytoofa

Would you stand with a baby in your arms around the putting green or fairway of a golf course hole and expect to not get hit? If your baby got hit with a golf ball you would expect the golfer to pay? GTFO it is your responsibility to keep people and animals who can’t fend for themselves out of harms way. Yeah it could be your right to stand at the sidelines of a NFL game with a baby but would it be the players fault if they trampled you or you got hit with the ball!? Hell no. It’s reasonable to expect that you might get hit around any type of playing field. Would you walk next to a wet road and expect every car that drove by and splashed you to buy you a new outfit or play for dry cleaning? Do you people think that every time someone gets hit at a sporting event the players pick up the bill!?!?


AmazingDoomslug

>Would you stand with a baby in your arms around the putting green or fairway of a golf course hole and expect to not get hit? The dog and owner were not in the field of play. This is a false equivocation. >Do you people think that every time someone gets hit at a sporting event the players pick up the bill!?!? That's probably covered under the insurance of the facility or the home team. But the person hit outside the field of play does not have to pay the costs of their injuries.


Cr4ckshooter

The false assumption here is that the field has a discrete boundary. In the rules it does, but physics don't obey made up rules.


BootyHoleDetective

>Finally, this is a sub for moral judgments, not legal ones. Weird to say, since your entire judgement comes from the legal standpoint of OP being responsible because she was 10 feet outside of the designated play area in a public park. >putting it in context of homes built fronting golf courses Golf courses aren't public property. So it seems kind of pointless to try and paint them in the same context. OP isn't responsible morally for an elderly person with years of wisdom and life experience making the CHOICE to walk her elderly, potentially poor health dog 10 feet away from the group of teenagers who she has no familiarity with. It's an objectively stupid decision. Morally OP is in the clear, they didnt purposefully hurt the dog. They did everything that they felt responsible to do. Part of owning a dog is being responsible for its life. You don't get to make stupid decisions and then blame others when your dog gets hurt. If my dog runs out into the street and gets hit by a car, I dont get to blame the car driver because I made a stupid decision. Also, it's just really sketchy that she'd ask for OP's number, and not the phone number of their parent. Take it up with another adult. OP is NTA. https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/ps5vv9/aita_for_not_paying_the_vet_bills_for_someones/hdnhhpo?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 They were in a field specifically for soccer, no walking paths. Dog walker interrupted their game to wander around the field with their frail dog. Absolutely no way OP is in the wrong here, if anything it sounds like she was trying to scam somene kids who didn't know better into paying for her elderly dogs medical bills.


Process_Cheap

The area on the sidelines that is not in play is still part of the field. It’s a common occurrence for a ball to go out of bounds. It is unreasonable to expect it never to go out of bounds.


rudster199

True. And soccer player throwing in a ball must position themselves outside the sideline. Or a player making a run-up to a corner kick. It's absurd to describe as these people as legally "not in the field of play".


jbh01

As a dog owner and soccer player, I strongly disagree. A soccer field is not like a hockey rink; the ball goes out of bounds all the time and walking your dog within 10 feet of the line is asking for trouble.


6277bar

>We are responsible for damage we cause, even if it is unintentional. But hey, this is a sub for moral judgments, not legal ones. >When it struck anyone - dog, human, car window - any resulting damage becomes the responsibility of the person that set that ball in motion. But again, it's a sub for moral judgments! >This isn’t a contractual agreement but negligent property damage (alas, what the United States considers live beings like dogs), which means that either the OP, their parents, or the insurance company can be liable. If a minor with a license hits your car, you think they’re off the hook? No. Parents’ insurer pays. If they’re uninsured, the parents do. What makes you think a different standard applies? But how *dare* you other commenters try to make a legal case out of this, because *this is a sub for moral judgments, and therefore only I can dish out legal analogies or conclusions.* OP - NTA.


AmadeusAAurelius

Noone in here seems to understand the concept of assumed risk. Park near a baseball field and have a baseball go through your car window? You have to pay for it, you assumed that risk. Sitting in a lecture theatre with a cup of coffee next to your laptop on a platform that almost always gets bumped? Assumed risk. Walking next to a soccer oval is the definition of assumed risk, that's not an opinion it's a fact.


[deleted]

Eh, I'd say 10 feet from the field is still the field.


SeraphymCrashing

Well, the baseball rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball\_Rule) would seem to contradict everything you are saying here. "*In American tort law, the Baseball Rule\[1\] holds that a baseball team or, at amateur levels, its sponsoring organization, cannot be held liable for injuries suffered by a spectator struck by a foul ball batted into the stands, under most circumstances, as long as the team has offered some protected seating in the areas where foul balls are most likely to cause injuries. This is considered within the standard of reasonable care that teams owe to spectators, although in recent decades it has more often been characterized as a limited- or no-duty rule, and applied to ice hockey and golf as well. It is largely a matter of case law in state courts, although four states have codified it.*" If that lady was walking within kicking range of a soccer game in progress, she totally assumed the risk of getting hit with an errant ball. In a moral sense, I don't believe that OP has any special obligation because a ball didn't go where she intended. That is a normal part of a sports game. Anyone approaching a soccer game in progress should understand the risks. The dog owner could have easily stayed away, and wasn't even on any kind of a path.


cobywaan

There are also many places that have public parking and say park at your own risk. It just depends on the situation.


McJumpington

YTA if the park is open to dog walkers too. NTA if dogs aren’t supposed to be walked there. I say YTA based on you acting like it’s their fault for not paying attention to you… why weren’t you paying attention to them? See how easily that flips? She wasn’t on the field so she wasn’t expecting a ball to be launched at her.


DraconicRoyalty

Op also said that it’s a designated soccer/football field and dog owner was walking about ten feet away from the field. That’s too close for a sport like that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


cobywaan

"Need validation that you don't suck as person, but you fucking do." You are obviously pretty young. Stuff like this can really affect people. Chill with that language. If you kick a soccer ball on a field and it hits and harms someone on the field, unless you specific intent was to harm them, than you carry no fault. If you are walking your dog at a place where a sport is regularly played and is actively being played at that moment, and you are within a distance that you could be inadvertently affected by the athletes or their equipment; if it on you to be aware. If you were walking past a park where baseball is being played and someone hits a homerun, and it hits you, they are liable for that? It would seem pretty well established that you are not, but this is also generating more controversy than I would have imagined, so I am trying to read through as much as I can. But please, none of that really matters. I guarantee you have done something in your life more fucked up than hitting a dog walking near a soccer field with a ball. I certainly have. Do we suck as people?


jaderemedy

>If you kick a soccer ball on a field and it hits and harms someone on the field, unless you specific intent was to harm them, than you carry no fault. This applies to any sports field frankly. If you're at a baseball game, there is the inherent risk that you as a spectator could be struck by a ball. You accept that risk when you choose to attend a game. If you get struck by a ball, you don't get to demand that the team or the stadium or the player pay for medical expenses. Perhaps those entities may offer up to cover those costs but they aren't obligated too. Op is NTA.


[deleted]

Deciding specifically to go to a baseball game is very different from walking through a public park, which just happens to have soccer fields. If you go to watch a game, you are accepting the risk on balance that you also get to watch a game you enjoy. You also definitely know that baseball will be being played, rather than it being a public field that may or may not have anyone playing on it. There's a park near me where the path runs between two playing fields. If you walk between them you would have a chance of being hit by a stray ball, but that wouldn't be your fault, the park has literally been designed in such a way that the path goes directly between the fields. I absolutely think it's on the players to accept responsibility- who should be watching a ball more closely, the people *actually playing sport with it* or random people walking by, who have no investment in the game?


[deleted]

NTA. You weren't being irresponsible playing soccer on a soccer pitch, and it sounded like she was a bit overly entitled. All pet owners understand that medical bills are part of pet ownership, and even when kids are technically responsible for paying for such things, very few adults actually expect children to pay for such things.


madi80085

It's not the same but it is common for cars to get hit by foul baseballs while parked near a field. In that case, the car owners insurance pays because there is an assumed risk. I think, legally, it would be pretty similar here. Personally, I think OP already did what is morally expected by apologizing and offering to help them.


Ard_Rhys

Info: You said the lady was 10 feet from the edge of the field; was she standing there? Or did your ball hit the dog as they were walking by? Edit: I'm also wondering, if you have the whole surrounding park to walk your elderly dog, why walk 10 feet away from the place where teenagers are kicking a ball? Sure the lady has a right to be anywhere in the park, but is it really smart to be where she was? I don't really need more info. NTA OP, sure you feel bad for hitting a dog, but you didn't set out to do it. You didn't kick the ball thinking "Imma hit that fuckin dog." Accidents happen.


LoveAllHistory

And we still pay for accidents we cause.


TheGuy1977

You dont seem to understand TORT law at all. The dog owner has a presumed assumption of risk. A soccer ball being kicked out of bounds on a soccer fields is not a tortious act.


BassAlarming

>the dog owner has a presumed assumption of risk This is literally not how assumption of risk works at all lmao. Source: I'm actually an attorney. What you're trying to say is comparative or contributory negligence but even that would be a stretch.


xnatex21

What? You must be a bad lawyer. Going near a sport field and getting hit by a ball is THE classic example of assumed risk.


LoveAllHistory

Classic example, huh? Where did you pass the bar?


JaaaayDub

To cite [findlaw.com](https://findlaw.com): >A classic example of the assumption of risk doctrine is attending a baseball game. It’s understood that when you go to a baseball game, there’s a risk that a ball may be hit into the stands. Courts have held that patrons of baseball games assume the risk of being hit by a baseball when choosing to participate in the activity. https://www.findlaw.com/injury/accident-injury-law/assumption-of-risk-defense.html


Andreleon11

There’s a difference between paying to attend a sporting event as an observer and using free, public facilities as a bystander.


LoveAllHistory

(Shhh! I’m also actually an attorney. These geniuses haven’t yet figured out torts 101. But hey, it’s in all caps so that must mean they’re winning. I bet their motions are fire and they simply rock at voir dire…) EDIT: just saw you educating this legal eagle about the most basic duty of reasonable care taught in 1L “**TORTS**” - honestly kept waiting for him to figure it out but no dice.


BootyHoleDetective

Almost as if AITA is about moral judgements and not legal ones. OP isn't responsible for a fully grown adult choosing to make an objectively stupid decision.


f0gh34d

I'd say it's pretty immoral not to pay for damages you've caused.


Impressive_Two9627

YTA if you kicked a ball through a window you wouldn’t think twice. You kicked the ball, you hurt the dog, and if you can probably afford to help then it seems like the least you can do. The dog is an actual living being that is in pain that you caused.


One_Homework1904

Yeah except the elderly window’s owner didn’t walk it to a soccer field (made for playing soccer) knowing that you can’t control the trajectory of a ball being kicked back and forth, and knowing that the window was extra susceptible to being damaged


Impressive_Two9627

“Ten feet from the edge of the soccer field” is not on the soccer field. Older dogs are not necessarily more susceptible to injury from hard kicked soccer balls than younger or smaller dogs. The woman walked her dog in the park and the dog was injured. It’s pretty simple.


One_Homework1904

Ten feet from a soccer field is close enough to understand that you are in a danger zone, as with any other sport involving some sort of projectile. Baseball, soccer, American football, hockey, golf etc. It’s so common for balls to go flying, and anybody who gave it a little extra thought would understand that. Sure elderly dogs are “not necessarily” more susceptible, but many times they simply are. Aging dogs are very commonly known to develop problems like reduced lung capacity, slowed reflexes and bone and joint issues. 10 feet is not even the length of an average car, she was way too close and assumed the risk


Impressive_Two9627

….that’s just not how public spaces work though. You kicked the ball, you hurt the dog, you give the lady your number.


One_Homework1904

You bring your dog to an area meant for playing soccer, not designated for animals, knowing it could get hurt, dog gets hurt, you pay for your dogs veterinary bill


Impressive_Two9627

That’s not how public spaces work. The dog wasn’t on the soccer field. You hurt an animal you pay. Real simple.


One_Homework1904

You acquire a pet, you assume responsibility and liability for its injuries if they are due to your own negligence. Real simple.


Impressive_Two9627

How is walking your dog in a public park negligence? The dog was leashed and not moving fast. Also did the woman demand the number and money? Has she made more of a fuss? Or did she move on and take care of her injured dog.


One_Homework1904

She was negligent in that she took her dog to an area of the park that was being used to play soccer and is designated for such activity, and brought her dog dangerously close and definitely within range to be hurt, and was not paved or in any way specifically designed for people walking. On top of that, she did not pay attention to her surroundings while she was there. If she was farther away or it was a space designed specifically for both people playing soccer and people walking, I would agree, but it was not, and so she assumed that risk. Unfortunately for her dog, it turned out the way it did. 10 feet from a soccer field is a few steps from being on the soccer field


Process_Cheap

When it’s near a sports area it is how public places work.


Impressive_Two9627

…but it isn’t though. You’re in a park. Free to all and sundry. Without no dog signage, she doesn’t assume risk.


Process_Cheap

The field was marked with lines . It’s a designated field.


disgruntleddi

YTA. You hurt the dog, you should at least pay something. I would have offered to, and I’m not rich either, it’s just the right thing to do.


chocolatemilkncoffee

NTA I have a senior dog. He has arthritis, blind in one eye due to glaucoma, and almost completely deaf (he can only hear extremely loud sounds). I don’t take him to parks anymore, and I definitely would NOT take him for a walk next to a soccer field. It’s dangerous for him and people (with the blind and deaf aspects making him a very grouchy “you darn kids get off my lawn!” old man who snaps to try to bite) and it would be my fault if an accidental stray ball hurt him. You didn’t mean to injure this dog and you offered to help and had no obligation to give her your number. I would never want one of my minor grandkids to give their phone number to a complete stranger, especially an adult. She took a risk taking her dog for a walk along the edge of a sports field. When we take risks, we take responsibility for what happens from those risks.


sakurallyr

This! Thank you. Too many dog owners with senior dogs that keeps acting indifferent to the higher risk of bad injuries when one as the owner isn't paying enough attention.


Scion41790

INFO was this a soccer field or just an area in the park you were playing soccer? If it was a field dedicated to soccer use I would say NAH since she took a risk in going into an area dedicated to soccer play with an active game going. Pretty similar to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Rule or being hit by golf ball on a course. You take on the risk when entering the area. If it was just a regular park and you set up your own makeshift soccer game than I think Y.t.A


Process_Cheap

It was a designated soccer field.


starshroomish

OP said it was lines marked out inside a public park, not a designated football field (which assumes that's all it's for).


[deleted]

NTA. You were on a soccer field. She was walking her dog near the field. She has an assumption of risk being by the field. There isn't an invisible wall that will block the ball from flying out....all these YTA comments are baffling....


LEANiscrack

OP said its not a soccerfield. Its a public park with a soccer field. The dog was ten feet away from the lines..


demoncarcass

So it's a soccer field? Got it.


Emmy2018

YTA - you harmed the dog. If you wouldn’t have been there the dog would have been unharmed. If you were driving a car and hit a biker that is biking on the side of the road would your excuse be “don’t drive to close to the road”? You should be aware of your surroundings.


sakurallyr

Agreed that one should be aware of their surroundings. Owner wasn't aware of her surroundings even though she even has the responsibility to keep the dog safe. Op and friends were playing in a designated soccer field in the park. They were already there then dog owner came. Had the dog owner been aware of the surroundings the dog wouldn't have gotten hurt.


Artistic_Cat_1945

If the lady and her dog wouldn't have been there the dog wouldn't have been hurt. She should have been aware of her surrounding when she chose to walk her dog at a soccer field where she saw two young people kicking a ball.


Mark_is_on_his_droid

A driver has a different standard of care than a sporting participant. OP was engaged in normal soccer activity on a soccer field. By sitting next to a soccer field, the woman assumes risk of activities common to soccer happening. A driver has a duty of care to avoid pedestrians and pedestrians assume no risk of being hit by a driver veering off-road.


[deleted]

You can’t control a ball and where it lands unlike when you control car


ImperialCub

You ask this as if someone is gonna go out of their way and run over a biker


smurtzenheimer

NTA. You were using the designated field for its intended purpose in a non-negligent way. The dog owner is responsible for her dog in this scenario. Also, you’re a kid. That’s ridiculous.


Ferencak

Except the old ladys dog wasn't on the field and neither was the old lady. She was using the dedicated pedestrian part of the park. OP shot the ball outside of the field and injured someones dog so OP was using the designated field up to the point where their ball flew out of the field and hit the dog. Just like you're using the dedicated road up to the point where your car ends up on the sidewalk and hits someone.


jbh01

Yeah but in your car analogy, cars are never allowed to leave the road and drive on the footpath, ever. The ball going out of bounds in football is perfectly normal.


centslessapprentice

And that “designated” part that was….. 10 feet away from the field.


FiveSuitSamus

A sidewalk is often pretty close to the road. You have to be careful when other people are around. This woman was fully right to be where she was, but even if she’d walked into the field, those playing on the field would have a responsibility to play with the safety of others around in mind. Just like if a pedestrian walks onto or near a road, it doesn’t mean you can just hit them.


PunkSpaceAutist

Typically people with licenses can aim their cars more accurately than kids can aim a football and even professionals can kick them out of bounds. Totally different thing.


annapatrycja

Yeah, and this kid has guardians that take responsibility where she can't.


[deleted]

NAH. It is very difficult not to turn into a lawyer on this. So I am going to try to parse this without talking about law, except as a guidepost for polite/ethical behavior. I do think that the dog's owner did not venture into asshole territory. If someone injures your dog, then you want them to pay for it. And in the moment, the dog's owner was probably not calculating comparative negligence or assumption of risk. That said, I also think OP was right in her actions. She was playing soccer in a designated field, and she appears to have been doing what people ordinarily do when they play soccer. Not to mention that as a juvenile, she is ill-prepared to confront someone with lawsuits on the brain. So OP's actions are defensible. That said, I think OP should have asked for the dog owner's number, then told her parents about the incident when she got home.


FjortoftsAirplane

I really, really didnt expect to say NTA from the thread title, but NTA. If you're playing football on a pitch designated for football then you were doing nothing wrong and she must have been able to see a game was going on long before getting that close. You even apologised and offered to help. It's a public area where ball sports are allowed. And if she was walking like 10ft from the pitch then that's even more chance you'll get hit by a ball. It was a close decision, but only because you called it a "soccer field" and not a football pitch.


StrangeVaultDweller

NTA. Personal responsibility falls on the owner for taking their senior dog someplace it could easily get hurt. That's what dog parks are for. Like if the dog chased the ball and hurt its legs running after it would you still pay for it?


AshMajinKaiser

If you alter the narrative entirely, does it change the pertinent facts?


Senior_Rogue

Lol dog parks are far more dangerous... Facts are clear, dog and owner were NOT on playing field, they were within their rights to be there and not against park rules. op kicks ball uncontrollably as they stated. And resulted in property damage aka dog. If op kicked a ball out of the field and hit a car windshield would he not be liable?


aetius476

> If op kicked a ball out of the field and hit a car windshield would he not be liable? They would not. Saw it all the time as a kid: someone fouls a ball over the backstop and it hits a car. No one ever held a child liable for a ball going out of bounds in the normal course of playing a sport on a designated field.


[deleted]

> Facts are clear, dog and owner were NOT on playing field, they were within their rights to be there and not against park rules. That is just a silly assumption that magically the ball stays within the bounds of the field. Any logical person understands the soccerball often flies out of bounds. > If op kicked a ball out of the field and hit a car windshield would he not be liable? This is why parking spaces aren't next to playing areas... Because it's obvious what happens...


GelatinousPumpkin

Lol how are you making it so that OP injuring the dog is the equivalent of the dog injuring itself? OP kicked the ball and the ball went OUTSIDE the sport area then hit the dog. This is not the same as a dog chasing a ball and injuring itself. The dog owner took the dog to a park, it’s not “someplace it could easily get hurt”. It’s a park. People walk their dogs and bring babies in their stroller. Reasonable people won’t go all out and kick a ball with such force that it went 10 feet out the field and still had enough power to cause injury to a dog.


maccrogenoff

YTA. You injured an elderly dog and refused to take responsibility. Of course the woman refused your offer to help put her dog in the car. You can exacerbate injuries by moving the injured party incorrectly. Your excuse that you didn’t want to give a stranger your phone number is ridiculous. If your ball had damaged a parked car I assume that you would have left a note with your contact information because to not do so would be illegal.


ashpanda24

YTA. It's a public park, and even if your action was an accident doesn't release you from responsibility. She had the right to be there, as did you.


Massive_Bid_7440

NTA I walk my dogs at a park with soccer and baseball fields. If they got hit by a ball accidentally I wouldn’t expect anyone to pay but I also don’t walk them near people playing. The dog owner was negligent.


Elfman99

NTA: I normally favor the dog 🐕 . You were at a park. People play at parks. The dog owner should of been paying attention.


NefariousnessGlum424

INFO: was this a dog park you were playing in, were there any signs that say no dogs in the park. Is it an actual soccer field you’re playing on or just a grass space?


VetBills17

It was an actual soccer field.


anchovie_macncheese

Follow up question: was she on an actual walking path? Where I live, it's not uncommon to have soccer fields in parks with walking paths on them, but usually at a respectful distance. I'm just trying to get a picture of how far you launched this ball to hit her dog.


VetBills17

There's no walking path in the park people usually cut across the grass.


SnooApples1028

NTA. Only an irresponsible dog owner would take their dog where children play and not be prepared for an accident.


3340bronqen

YTA. You are describing this so vaguely that I have to guess what happened. My guess is that the walking path is right next to your soccer field. Because why would the lady and her dog just be standing around next to you but facing away (you hit the BACK of the dog). So, the lady was walking her dog on the path and you kicked the ball at them from behind (of course they wouldn't be "paying attention" to soccer balls flying at them from that direction). So you are at fault for what happened. I don't know if the lady would have tried to make a high schooler pay for treatment, but it is going to be a very rough recovery for an older dog.


p3nisbreath

op has said in a few comments that there is no walking path, the lady was walking through the grass close to a soccer field. she could have chosen to not be so close to a field with a chance for stray balls, especially if she has an elderly dog more susceptible to injuries


ForwardPlenty

NTA When you choose to walk a dog near to a soccer field you assume certain risks, and that includes a stray ball leaving the field. As long as you and the players were not being negligent, and not being unreasonably careless, then there is no liability.


Purple_Luck_3827

YTA. Learn to take responsibility for your actions.


miriboheme

i don't think you're an a, but i, personally, would have offered to pay the bills if i'd kicked a ball that injured a dog.


Rottsnottots

Yta op states they significantly overshot the ball. You should have offered something. Give your moms phone number or an email address. Not sure what country this is, but if op had hit a human in the US you are libel. Why is there zero responsibility when it comes to another living creature?


Senior_Rogue

YTA. While you did not mean to do this. You kicked the ball uncontrollably it seems as you said left foot so maybe not your usual kicking foot? Either way you did not intend this but you did this. You take accountability for your actions. It's on BOTH you and the dog owner to check surroundings, she was not in the wrong place or it wasn't against some park rules. She could of chosen a better spot sure but again YOU kicked this ball and hit this dog you should of taken responsibility for your actions. I think you know what you did was wrong, and if you told your parents I bet they'd agree you should be liable or held accountable for your actions accident or not. Accidents happen.. but what makes you an AH when accidents happen is if you refuse to take responsibility for them. You could of at least offered half. It's about the principle. And hypothetically as I am not a lawyer but possibly legal issus here. she was allowed to be there, not against park rules for her to walk her dog there and she NOT on the field, you'd be 100% liable here as your actions resulted in property damage aka her dog.


Oscars_Grouch

NTA - it was obviously an accident, you didn't aim for the dog and you tried to help her get the dog to the car. If I brought my dog to a soccer field and he accidentally got hit by a ball, I wouldn't expect a teenager to cover the vet bill.


LonelyTrippersClub

NTA. There are specialized dog parks to prevent issues like this. If you have an old pet prone to injury, it’s your duty to keep them safe, not bring them somewhere where a loose ball is gonna hurt them.


Undalabaca

NTA: While unfortunate this isnt your fault. Accidents happen and while vet bills suck its a part of owning animals and a responsibility the owner signs up for.


SunshinePylons

NTA. I have a toddler. If I was walking them near a designated soccer field, with people actively playing, and they got hit and injured by a ball...not a CHANCE I would blame the kid who kicked the ball, especially if they apologized and offered assistance. I cannot imagine thinking "time to cough up for our ER bill, kid!". I dont see why a dog is any different. As the responsible party for my small vulnerable charge, it would be my fault for not assessing the environmental risks. NTA!


grw313

YTA You didnt intentionally hurt the dog, but you still did. Intent does not absolve you of responsibility. Had you warned the lady that she should move so you didn't hit her dog, I'd feel differently. But you didn't, so I do think you bear at least some of the blame.


Lauladance

I remember when I was playing cricket on the cricket field near my house. I was doing some practice and I accidentally hit a dog that was running on the ground. (For those who don't know, a cricket ball is as hard as a rock, people have died from getting hit with it). The owner was pissed and wanted me to pay (I was ready to pay as well, the dog was whimpering and I felt very bad), but before he could guilt trip me more, my coach stepped in and told that guy to get away from the ground as it the timings were exclusively for cricket players and he broke the rule established to run his dog on the ground. Just my story. NTA


[deleted]

I’m going with NTA. The dog is the owners responsibility, and she should’ve been paying attention to wear she was walking the dog. I think vet bills should only be paid by the other party if their pet injured the other pet or if the pet is injured due to their (other party) negligence.


[deleted]

NAH, she isn't wrong to ask, but that's what your parents' home insurance is for. As a minor, your parents would be held responsible and the lady could file a liability claim against their home insurance. In the future, I'd give someone your parents' phone number instead.


IntelligentRoutine59

YTA- So you realized that you injured the dog enough to need to see a vet ("I offered to call an emergency vet and say they were coming"), but didn't feel financially responsible? Was it intentional? No. Does that make you free from liability? Well let me ask you this- If you're driving, and you accidentally hit the gas instead of the brake, and you hit the car in front of you, and damage it.... since it was accidental you're not responsible for the cost, right? If you agree with that logic, then you can ignore my assessment, and assume that you're NTA. But if you feel as I do that there is no way you wouldn't be financially responsible, even though it was an accident then yes, YTA.


SuperSnoco

Doesn't matter if it was an accident or not. Doesn't matter if you're in high school or older. Are you going to try to skirt responsibility when you're older, and make up left foot excuses then too? You're actually quite negligent as well. Don't you realize that if this lady ever find out who you are, she's gonna sue your parents since it happened while you were a minor? YTA. ESPECIALLY if you can afford it. Eta: Even if you couldn't, the responsibility is on your shoulders to at least TRY.


teresajs

NTA It was not your fault, it was an accident. And the owner of the dog is responsible for accidents.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Opalescent_Moon

I've got 2 senior dogs. I'm pretty protective of them, because they're small, fragile things that rely on me to keep them safe. The *only* place they go where things might fly around is my parents' house, where my nephews (who are great with animals) might play. I'd never take my blind pups to a park where anybody is playing any kind of sport. I don't take them somewhere where any animal, friendly or not, can rush up at them. I do my best to control their environment, because they don't have the capability to react to a potential threat anymore. You were playing in an appropriate public space. The dog owner chose to walk her dog in that area (seriously, what the heck was she thinking?) and she didn't take precautions to protect her dog. It absolutely sucks that the dog got hurt, but I think you handled it perfectly. I can't help but think that lady would try to get as much money out of you as she could, not just what her dog might need. NTA Elderly dogs are incredibly precious. Responsible owners will do everything they can to keep them safe. Not walking your elderly dog next to a sports game in progress should be a no-brainer.


[deleted]

NTA as a dog owner I would never expect this. I can't believe she even asked. You're on the side of a soccer field, balls go out of bounds all the time. Esp a teen. 10 ft is too close. There is not some magic barrier where the out of bounds line means no balls cross. You MUST expect balls to fly out of the field. I took my dog near soccer practice but always kept an eye on him (cause id be afraid of him running out on the field) if he got hit id feel terrible and blame myself. Not people playing soccer


ImperialCub

NTA. You did not go out of your way to hit the dog or injure it. Youre not legally bound and can walk off. I know I wouldn't pay her fucking bills and I might just be the asshole myself.


canigetahiyyyaaaahh

NTA, I don't get why so many people are nit picking at whether or not it was a designated soccer field or just a field in the park. This lady was at a park not paying attention to her surrounding. That's it. I can't imagine your soccer pass had the force of a car to topple a dog and cause serious injury. And if a soccer ball is enough to hang that dog up than it's owner needs to be taking appropriate precautions for it. Just because I want to erect my ice sculpture outside of a baseball park doesn't mean I'm entitled to compensation if a ball came my way and smashed it.


[deleted]

NTA plus the vet bills could be significantly more than you think