I heard about a story where the guy runs over a dog and his car obviously gets damaged. The dog dies. It was actually still alive and when the owner went to the scene, he just grabbed the dog and threw it on the bed of his truck. He showed no sign of sadness. Later on, the dog's owner says that the dog died on the way to the vet. The guy with the damaged car does not get a ticket because the police officer says the driver was not at fault. The driver now wants to ask the dog owner for the money to repair the car - at least the deductible.
My mom and I were talking about this and we couldn't believe it at first... The dog already died, and now the owner will be asked for money to repair the damage for the car that hit the dog? It just didn't seem right...
However, I was searching about it last night and found a message board discussing this same issue. Many of the responses agreed with the driver - that the dog owner should pay because they did not use the proper restraints to make sure their dog was safe. The comments went on to say that if it happened to be where the driver got into a more serious car accident trying to dodge the dog, it would have been even worse and so the dog owner should just pay up.
Is this really how it is? I was just a little shocked.
What do you think?
Honestly? Unleashed dogs are a huge pet peeve of mine. (The exception is when the dog gets out of the house and the owner is trying to catch them.) My neighbors let their dogs out unleashed and the other day I caught it trying to poop on my deck (apt. complex). I understand that some owners think their dogs are well enough behaved that they don't need to be leashed outdoors, but if they do that they accept the chance their their dog could into the street, chase someone ect. I feel terrible for the owner losing their dog, but I also believe that accidents like that are preventable and can be prevented by keeping dogs leashed outdoors.
The dog owner is at fault. The dog should have been under the owner's control (leashed, fenced, etc.).
The driver of the car is not at fault. You are NEVER supposed to swerve for animals! It's very dangerous! If the dog ran out in front of the car, the driver likely may not have had time to stop.
I'm a huge dog lover and have three. I would be devastated if they got out and got ran over, but it would be my responsibility.
As a dog owner, if my dog got out and ran into the street and was struck by a car and died - I'd feel responsible and cover the damages.
If for some reason, the laws of the area allow dogs to roam unleashed, I'd feel less liable.
If I was the driver and hit someone's dog and the dog died, I'd personally feel horrible and would likely take the loss on my own insurance... but, it really would depend on the circumstances of WHY the dog was out in the first place... ie: was it an accident/one time type thing - or was it just because the owner let the dog out hoping it would be ok, etc. Regardless, I think the dog owner is liable for the damage.
I don't know exactly the situation, but generally speaking once you have a pet, you are responsible for it. Which means that you have to make sure the pet is safe and also that people around your pet are safe. My aunt used to have an insurance to cover damages that her dog could have made.
I'm on the fence. My dog is WELL trained. He stays in our (unfenced) yard, he waits at exits to parks, and anytime he's off-leash, he'll stop and/or come on a dime (maybe plus a 10-20 delay if he's sniffing something. but if he's in motion, he'll redirect). So if he somehow got hit by a car it would be VERY out of character for him. It's just about as likely as your 5 year old getting hit by a car. If kids get hit by a vehicle, are their parents responsible for damages? (I don't know; I don't have them and don't know anyone who's hit a kid - but I'm guessing not)
On the flip side; neglectful owner who thinks an untrained dog should exercise himself? Creating a hazard and absolutely should pay. Although someone should report him to pet rescue first.
So at the end of the day.. it depends on the situation. I don't think it should be automatic. And I think the standard for pet care and training should be higher.
probably the owners fault, and judging by the described reaction, he's neither a responsible owner nor a dog lover... however I'd feel so awful about hitting a dog, I'd probably prefer to take the bus for a year than ask for damages.
If the dog was unleashed its the owners fault, if the dog was leashed and say the owner was walking w the dog across the street, i would say its the drivers fault.
The owner's emotions are really not important. If your dog causes a problem off of your property, the owner is liable, regardless of the circumstances.
It's the dog owner's fault for not controlling the animal.
A side story-many yrs ago, my ex hit a cow (yes, a cow) and totaled his car. The cow also died.
The owner of the cow sued my ex, saying he was speeding and would have been able to see the cow and stop if had been driving the speed limit (which was probably true). He further stated that the cow had broken through the fence and that he had no way of knowing the cow was in the middle of the road, so it was not his fault.
The court ruled in favor of my ex. No discussion. It didn't matter why the cow was out-didn't matter is it had never happened before.
The court will almost always find in favor of the driver if the animal is in the street.
If the dog was off-leash and just ran into the street, owner is at fault. The only way the driver would be at fault was if it was like... in the dog owner's driveway or something where it would be a reasonable expectation for it to be off-leash.
The owner is technically liable.
However, I would NEVER ask the owner for any kind of money when they've just lost a member of their family. In my opinion, they've paid for it enough.
So my question is, if the dog didnt die, would it be the owners fault then? Just because the dog died or didnt die shouldn't change whose fault it is.
I am basing these questions on the wording of your poll. You dont know the driver saw the dog at all, you dont know they didnt try to avoid it. All you know is the dog got killed while a driver who has right of way was driving down the road. Whether the dog gets killed or not doesnt change the circumstances. It only makes it more sad.
The driver - he/she killed the dog and didn't avoid it!
I think it's the dog owner's fault. I absolutely hate off leash dogs. People really put more faith in their animals than they should. I have 3 dogs and can't take them for walks anymore because of the amount of off leash dogs in our neighborhood. And yes, these dogs just sit in the yard, until we walk by and then they come running. My dogs attacked a poor little dog a few months ago that was off leash and came charging at them. The dog's leg was injured but it was the owner's fault, and he took responsibility for it because he knew he was wrong to have his dog off leash in the front yard. So I would think the same if it's a car, since the dog is off leash it is the responsibility of the irresponsible pet owner to pay for the damages.
@AlwaysSunny: +1. It's sad that the dog owner probably feels bad about losing his dog, but that doesn't change the fact that he's responsible for the damages.
It's absolutely the dog owner's fault, and dog owners should not kid themselves that their dog is too smart or too well-behaved to need to be leashed. Even the best trained dogs, short of service dogs, can go running after another animal, be startled by backfire, or all sorts of other unpredictable behaviors. I'm a dog owner, and my dog is really obedient and mellow, and there's still no way I'll let her in an unfenced yard without a leash.
As a dog owner, you must protect your dog and the people around you from reasonably forseeable dangers. It's absolutely reasonable to expect an unleashed dog might potentially run into the street.
Hmm I would say the dog owner is at fault unless the driver was on a private road thru that owners massive farm then I would say the driver needs to pay up. That does happen but is never reported because the driver is technically trespassing. In 98% of the cases it falls on the owner. One of the liabilities of pet ownership I guess!
@secondchances: agreed. My parents do not keep our lab on a leash when she is at the farm. Anywhere else - a park, the neighborhood - she would be leashed. But its also common knowledge in their small town that every farm has at least one dog and you need to drive slowly.
so if i hit a five-year-old who unexpectedly runs into the street after a ball, should it be the parents' fault?
@alotlikelove: I used to work in a line of business where I can tell you with certainty that yes, this is how it works. The dog was the proximate cause of the accident, because it was not leashed. The dog should be under the constant care of the owner, and the owner assumes liability for negligence. The driver did nothing wrong. It was an accident that could have easily been prevented by the dog owner.
The dog owner would be obligated to pay the deductible if this went to a small claims court.
@starbuckslover: Yes. To an extent. There would be a scene investigation to determine if the driver was obeying traffic laws. If there is any contributory negligence, the costs are split. But if the driver was 100% following the letter of the law, and the child made a run for the ball in front of the car, the parents are negligent. They should be dedicating the proper time and attention needed to control a minor.
@kybride: I handled a claim very similar to your ex's cow story. Only in this incident, the cow lived! But the owner's fence was in disrepair, which means he's liable. The kicker? It was a police car that hit the cow.
The owner should be liable. My grandparents have a ranch, and sometimes the cattle break the fence. If a car hits one of them, they have one less cow AND mechanic/hospital bills to pay.
@abbyful: I disagree about never swerving for an animal. If my choice is a moose or a ditch, I pick the ditch!
No idea how it works legally, but some local laws would matter. Legally, should have the dog been on a leash? Was the dog in a crosswalk?
@starbuckslover: it's horrible discussing this situation, but yes. The parent is responsible for stopping their child from running onto the street.
@starbuckslover: I don't know legally how this plays out, but I actually believe the answer should be yes. You chose to have that kid in your life, you're responsible for it. Just like with a dog. I'd just be driving my car!
When I was learning to drive a dog ran out in front of me. Luckily I was close to taking my test, and I managed to hit on the breaks in time and luckily no one was behind me, despite it being a busy street.
It was a very scary thing to happen. Your first instinct is to not hit the dog, but that can end up causing more serious problems if another car hits you.
It's a sad thing if the dog dies, and yes the owner will be living with the grief of that, but his grief wouldn't take away the emotional damage I would have felt after killing a dog, or pay for the damage to my car.
Incidentally, I cyclist drove straight into me once. He hit me from the side and landed on the hood of my car. I was incredibly shook up and offered to take me to the hospital because I felt awful (despite it being his fault). There are no laws for the cyclist to give me his details for insurance purposes just left as soon as he could. I was left with a £270 bill to fix my car because he wasn't looking where he was going. Not cool.
i think jaywalkers and unleashed pet situations should be treated the same.
and i'm taking the side of "the dog owner should pay up".... so if some idiot jaywalking on 7th street gets hit by me on my way to work... idiot shouldn't have been there. there are crosswalks, now fix my car! *ahem* not that this has happened... yet, but i slam my breaks quite often for stupid people.
@starbuckslover: Even if it is out of character for your dog... if your dog is in the road and a car hits him and busts a headlight, you are legally required to pay for that headlight unless it is on your private property or your dog is leashed in a crosswalk.
@DeadlyNightshade: Agreed.
Dogs should be on a leash. But, the driver should also be more careful (depending on the circumstances). I know that I would do everything in my power not to hit the animal.
Where I'm from, dogs are required to be on a leash or in a fenced in yard. The driver isn't supposed to try to swerve since it may result in a worse accident, I say the dog owner is liable for any damage.
It's kind of like if your dog bites someone, you as the owner are liable since you failed to take proper care to prevent it.
Of course in the circumstances of a car versus a dog or other animal, if you can stop safely, then you should definitely try to, if you don't have time to stop or genuinely cannot stop safely then there is nothing you can do.
Was the dog off the leash? or did the dog somehow manage to escape the owner. I've had a time where my dog got loose because her collar was too loose and I didn't realize. I've also had dogs leap over fences and run off... anyone who has a big dog can say that no matter how well behaved your dog is, if they take off unexpectantly on a leash (due to be frightened or feeling threatened), there's not really much you can do. I'm not going to let my dog drag me in that case. So I guess my answer depends on if the owner didn't give a shit that the dog was off his leash or if the dog accidentally got out of their hands.
@Woodstock: The question is "Who is liable for the damages?" Even if your dog jumps a fence/ breaks the leash/ books it out the front door... the owner is liable.
Sorry but the dog owner is at fault.
I lived in a neighborhood where a toddler was ran over and it was the parents fault. The toddler had darted in to a road where cars were going 45mph and a man killed the toddler. It was a terrible story, but you can't blame drivers for everything.
I was the witness last year for a jaywalker who was killed crossing the street. He darted into traffic and the car had no way of stopping. The driver was incredibly upset and threw up everywhere (it was gruesome scene, I don't blame him). Anyways, the driver ended up being at fault which I thought wasn't fair.
So yeah jaywalkers and dogs aren't treated the same.
As for the dog owners having suffered enough and not wanting them to have to pay the car repair bills on top of losing their pet, I'm kind of on the fence about this. If I were the driver, I'd have to deal with having killed a dog, which is just kind of scary and depressing to me, so it's not like it's only the dog's owners who have some tough emotions to deal with. If the repair bill were minor, I'd probably just deal with it myself (or not fix my car) but if the bill were more than a couple hundred dollars, I would definitely want the dog owners or their insurance to pay. I wasn't doing anything wrong; why should I have to use my own money or file an insurance claim and risk raising my rates, just because someone else didn't take proper precautions with their dog?
If it were an object that I hit and not a dog---say I was driving behind a construction truck and a toolbox fell off and I hit it--- without a doubt, I'd expect them to pay for it. They didn't secure their load and their irresponsibility shouldn't cost me money. A dog running into the street would be no different.
If the owner of the dog didn't have him properly secured/tied up/on a leash, than he is responsible for the damage to the other party's car. I think it's pretty unfair to say that the car owner shouldn't be compensated for damages to his car that the owner of the pet could have prevented if they were not so negligent.
If the dog just accidentally got away, slipped out of the owner's hand or something, then it should be considered an accident where no one is at fault. HOWEVER, that is not how car insurance works (someone is always at fault with car insurance) and so it would likely end up with the insurance that the driver of the car would be at fault (as if he had hit a tree or something)... which isn't really fair, but that's how it works.
If I were the irresponsible dog owner, I would pay the damages owed because I would feel so terrible that my negligence not only cut short my dog's life, it damaged someone else's property. I would be feeling pretty darn guilty.
sorry, the dog owner was irresponsible and HIS dog was the reason someone else's property was extensively damaged. Most like the dog owner's home owner policy will cover it.
You must log in to post.
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| RenoSweeney24 | 13 |
| dannielle89 | 12 |
| AlwaysSunny | 9 |
| mepayne | 7 |
| littlebeanpole | 7 |
| lsimpson | 7 |
| fvsoccer | 5 |
| HappilyEverAfter54 | 5 |
| Audrey2 | 5 |
| village_skeptic | 5 |
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| fvsoccer | 1 |
| texasbee | 1 |
| lsimpson | 1 |
| Dogsbody92 | 1 |
