Driver sues owners of dog that struck his car

[MrBug708]

hxxp://www.startribune.com/local/18716479.html

I understand the guys point of view, but is he taking it too far?

--------------------------------------
DULUTH, Minn. - The driver of a 1997 Honda Civic that struck and killed a dog near Cloquet is suing the dog's owners for damage done to his vehicle.

Jeffery Ely was driving on the night of Jan. 4 when Fester, a miniature pinscher, squeezed past owner Nikki Munthe as she was letting in her other dog and ran out onto the road. Ely's car struck Fester, killing the 13-pound dog instantly.

Now Ely is suing the Munthes for about $1,100 for damage to his car, time he had to take off from his two jobs to get the car repaired, and court fees.

Pieces of the bumper were propelled into the radiator when it hit the dog, Ely said, necessitating a replacement. Ely maintains he didn't have problems driving until after the accident and that the radiator issues were not pre-existing.

Ely said he feels sorry for the Munthes' loss but, as a dog owner himself, feels that they must be responsible for their pets' actions.

"I have complete compassion for them," Ely said. "I know how it feels. I love dogs. But once you get them, they are your responsibility."

Munthe said she has always been worried about the busy road the family lives on.

"We would have never let him off-leash because we're so terrified of this road," she said.

The case will be heard in St. Louis County Court on Friday.

The Munthes have filed a $2,400 countersuit against Ely for the cost to buy Fester, the time they had to take off work for court appearances, and the cost of buying a dog to replace Fester.

[MikeVic]

I think he should sue.

[vex]

I'd sue as well.

[rkmsuf]

I like it. I say the driver should be awarded punitive damages as well.

[Fidatelo]

Doesn't the driver's car insurance cover that?

[Huckleberry]

I think the right thing to do would be to ask them to pay for the repairs. If they don't, then sue them and include court fees in the suit.

Suing for the time off of work is a little much, though. I wouldn't do that unless I absolutely had to because I wasn't making much at an hourly job. He's driving a '97 Civic, so that's a possibility. But I drive a '96 F-150 and I wouldn't have included it, so you never know.

Doesn't the driver's car insurance cover that?

He probably has liability only.

[BrianD]

My first thought is that there is no way you should be able to sue a dog owner for something like this. My second thought is that in another thread I argued about the owner of a pitbull being responsible for damages it caused to another dog while off the leash. Is there any way these two thoughts aren't contradictory and hypocritical?

[MikeVic]

Yeah, I guess ask them to pay for the damages first. But they should be held responsible.

Yeah, Fidatelo, I would think so too. Something similar happened to me a couple years ago and it was covered. Well, the guy had to pay my deductible, but that's it.

[Cringer]

a miniature pinscher?

Did the dog leap into the air before the car hit him? I would think that would be a speed bump for a car. A great dane on the other hand.....

[Lathum]

As sick as it is I do see the car owners point.

[Mustang]

It sucks, but I can't disagree with the driver.

Now, if he tacked on 'mental anguish' in claiming that he couldn't drive any more because he lived in fear of tagging another dog well... ya, that would be crossing the line for me.

[GoldenEagle]

$2400 for a dog? Wow.

[sabotai]

I guess I see the guy's point, but I also think he's being a total dick.

[Lathum]

I guess I see the guy's point, but I also think he's being a total dick.

exactly.

I would be curious about the guys financial situation.

[14ers]

I am not sure why this would be different than if it was a child? If the driver had hit and killed a child, then tried to sue the parents of the child, how many people here would still be backing the Driver?



Most states give the road right of ways to Animals / Livestock. Sorry, those 5 hundred sheep in the middle of the street may turn a 15 minute commute into a 2 hour nightmare, but that does not give you the right to put the hammer down and part the wool.:)

[Bad-example]

If the dog got out and bit someone, it would be a slam dunk. Not really seeing any difference from a legal standpoint.

I feel bad for the dog owner but liability is a bitch. (Pun unintentional)

[14ers]

If the dog got out and bit someone, it would be a slam dunk. Not really seeing any difference from a legal standpoint.
Because in the street the animal has the right of way.

[Huckleberry]

I am not sure why this would be different than if it was a child? If the driver had hit and killed a child, then tried to sue the parents of the child, how many people here would still be backing the Driver?

I like dogs, too, but they are only property in the eyes of the law.

This is not close to hitting a child. This is like somebody letting their piano roll into the street and it hits a passing vehicle. Drivers can be expected to be aware of any pedestrians in the area. They shouldn't be expected to keep their eyes out for random pieces of property being allowed into the street. Well, they can be expected to keep their eyes out but the legal culpability is on the owner that negligently allowed the property to enter the roadway.

[Huckleberry]

Because in the street the animal has the right of way.

Is there really a law like that somewhere? I'd like to see it cited.

[Mustang]

Because in the street the animal has the right of way.

There is a huge difference in animals that are currently in the roadway that you come up on (horses, cows) than a dog darting out into the street uncontrolled.

[MikeVic]

I think if a child darted out and got hit, and caused a lot of damage, the parents of the child are liable as well. Why should the guy have to pay for repairs?

[Fidatelo]

How big is the child?

[MikeVic]

I don't know, like 12? Not a baby or anything, but someone that should know not to run across the street.

[14ers]

Is there really a law like that somewhere? I'd like to see it cited.
OPEN-RANGE LAWS[/URL]

Open-Range laws clearly state that domestic animal owners have no duty to keep animals off of the highway or an open-range and shall not be liable for damage to any vehicle or injury to any person caused by a collision between the vehicle and the animal.[URL="http://www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/articles22734.asp#_ftn2"] (http://www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/articles22734.asp#_ftn1)
I.R.S. 25-2118 (2000).

[MikeVic]

Well that's a dumb law.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Looks like a very state-by-state (or in some cases, county-by-county, thing)
http://www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/articles22734.asp

[Huckleberry]

So you're arguing that Minnesota has an open range law that applies to a dog? Even under the assumption that this was outside city limits that seems incorrect.

As far as I know Minnesota does not have an open range law and the states that do have laws refer to "livestock" not just domestic animals.

[Fidatelo]

I don't know, like 12? Not a baby or anything, but someone that should know not to run across the street.

Why should the parents be liable for their kid doing something he knows he shouldn't do? If he knows he shouldn't do it, shouldn't he be liable? I think if I was a parent and got sued because my 12 year old damaged some dudes front bumper when he darted into traffic I'd sue my kid for the amount that I'm being sued for, plus maybe some damages to my image and self-esteem.

[Huckleberry]

Heh. Thanks for the link Jon. Interesting how much was left out of 14ers information.

1.) It's an Idaho law he's citing. The situation happened in Minnesota.
2.) Witt v Janagin, 91 Idaho 181, 418 P2d 278(1966). The 9 Circuit has used a 3-prong test to determine whether or not a section of land is deemed open-range. It must be 1) unenclosed; 2) located outside of cities, villages, and herd districts; and 3) land upon which cattle by custom, license, lease, or permit are grazed or permitted to roam. Hubbard v. Howard, 758 F.Supp. 594 (D. Idaho 1990), affd. 927 F.2d 609 (9Cir. 1991).
3.) Idaho Statutes


TITLE 25 ANIMALS CHAPTER 21 ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE 25-2118. ANIMALS ON OPEN RANGE -- NO DUTY TO KEEP FROM HIGHWAY. No personowning, or controlling the possession of, any domestic animal running on openrange, shall have the duty to keep such animal off any highway on such range,and shall not be liable for damage to any vehicle or for injury to any personriding therein, caused by a collision between the vehicle and the animal."Open range" means all uninclosed lands outside of cities, villages and herddistricts, upon which cattle by custom, license, lease, or permit, are grazedor permitted to roam. </PRE>

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why should the parents be liable for their kid doing something he knows he shouldn't do? If he knows he shouldn't do it, shouldn't he be liable? I think if I was a parent and got sued because my 12 year old damaged some dudes front bumper when he darted into traffic I'd sue my kid for the amount that I'm being sued for, plus maybe some damages to my image and self-esteem.

Because until they reach the age of majority (or are emancipated), you're legally (and financially) responsible for their actions.

And in most cases, you couldn't sue the child because you would in effect be suing yourself, as they are not financially responsible for their own actions, YOU are.

[Huckleberry]

So it sounds like if this happened in Idaho and there were usually cattle grazing in their front yard then 14ers has found a good legal defense.

But since it happened in Minnesota, it was a dog, and I doubt there were cows eating nearby they may want to hire a different attorney. :D

[14ers]

TITLE 25 ANIMALS CHAPTER 21 ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE 25-2118. ANIMALS ON OPEN RANGE -- NO DUTY TO KEEP FROM HIGHWAY. No personowning, or controlling the possession of, any domestic animal running on openrange, shall have the duty to keep such animal off any highway on such range,and shall not be liable for damage to any vehicle or for injury to any personriding therein, caused by a collision between the vehicle and the animal."Open range" means all uninclosed lands outside of cities, villages and herddistricts, upon which cattle by custom, license, lease, or permit, are grazedor permitted to roam.
You do understand that a Dog is a Domestic Animal right? It is not like we are talking about some type of Wild Dog here.

[Icy]

It was worse in Spain past year. A guy ran over with his car and killed a kid that was riding his bicycle, then he sued the parents for the damage done to the car as the kid shouldn't ride his bye in a road.

As crazy as it sounds, the driver had all in his favor to win the lawsuit, as you can't ride a bike in a road unless it has enough space for it (that was not the case). The kid parents decided to fight it, called the Tv and explained it all, and it made the police to start a new investigation.

The good news for the kid parents and bad ones for the car owner is that in the new investigation, it was discovered that the car was over the speed limit for that road, so instead of getting any money for the car damage, the car driver is going to be law suited now with unintentional murder charges. I guess that to be that greedy was his lost at the end.

[Huckleberry]

Funny how I knew you would jump on that and ignore the Idaho vs. Minnesota and the open range definition parts. Yes, you're correct, the law covers dogs.

Now would you like to address the rest of the law? You can start with the open range part and move on to the part where Minnesota isn't in Idaho.

The bottom line is that I knew about open range laws but didn't even think about them based on the details of the story posted.

[Mustang]

wow... eerie.

I woke up this morning and I said "Self, you're gonna have a righteous open range laws discussion this morning"

[stevew]

When did Idaho annex Minnesota?

[Fidatelo]

Because until they reach the age of majority (or are emancipated), you're legally (and financially) responsible for their actions.

And in most cases, you couldn't sue the child because you would in effect be suing yourself, as they are not financially responsible for their own actions, YOU are.

Well that's fucking gay!

[M GO BLUE!!!]

a miniature pinscher?

Did the dog leap into the air before the car hit him? I would think that would be a speed bump for a car. A great dane on the other hand.....

It was a Honda Civic.

[Logan]

You do understand that a Dog is a Domestic Animal right? It is not like we are talking about some type of Wild Dog here.

Try again:

any domestic animal running on openrange

The 9 Circuit has used a 3-prong test to determine whether or not a section of land is deemed open-range. It must be 1) unenclosed; 2) located outside of cities, villages, and herd districts; and 3) land upon which cattle by custom, license, lease, or permit are grazed or permitted to roam.

Put it together and a dog is not what's being referred to.

[SnDvls]

edit: nevermind I see the dog owner's are doing what I would just to see both suits thrown out of the court system

[Fidatelo]

I situation like this is ruff on everyone.

[MikeVic]

I don't see how the dog's owners aren't responsible.

[MrBug708]

Is there really a law like that somewhere? I'd like to see it cited.

Welcome to Arcadia and Pomona. In Arcadia, it's a crime to hit any of the 200 peacocks that roam the area. These birds also have no fear of cars and will walk into the street and expect the cars to stop for them. I'm not sure of the fine but I would imagine it's fairly large, considering the city. Cal Poly Pomona has a pond that has ducks who live there. It's 1000 dollar fine if you harass, harm, or kill any of the Ducks on campus. That includes if they walk into the street and stop in the middle of the road

[GreenMonster]

exactly.

I would be curious about the guys financial situation.

Well he drives a 97' Honda Civic so I don't think he is killing it yet. He needs the money to fix his car, he most likely isn't rich. If he was asking for more money, other than the cost to repair his car, court fees, and missed work, he may catch a bad rap, but he hasn't done anything I wouldn't do minus the missed work most likely.

[rkmsuf]

yeah I can totally see how you'd compare a child to a dog :rolleyes:

[Huckleberry]

Welcome to Arcadia and Pomona. In Arcadia, it's a crime to hit any of the 200 peacocks that roam the area. These birds also have no fear of cars and will walk into the street and expect the cars to stop for them. I'm not sure of the fine but I would imagine it's fairly large, considering the city. Cal Poly Pomona has a pond that has ducks who live there. It's 1000 dollar fine if you harass, harm, or kill any of the Ducks on campus. That includes if they walk into the street and stop in the middle of the road

Either I misinterpreted the post he made that I was responding to with that question or else I just phrased the question poorly.

I took his previous statement of "in the road the animal has the right of way" as applying to all animals. Which, of course, I didn't believe is true anywhere.

[SnDvls]

I don't see how the dog's owners aren't responsible.

not having all the facts of the case (the story doesn't give them all), but if he was speeding or talking on his cell he could easily be responsible. If he was paying attention we would notice a dog running into the street. Just one example of how the dog owners could easily turn this around on him.

[Tiphnie]

I actually just saw a case like this on People's Court the other day. The dog owner is liable for the costs of the repairs because they lost control of their pet, at least thats how the case was resolved. Although the dog in this case was much bigger than a mini pinscher.

Dogs also in most places have to be on a leash and if they are unleashed the owners are most often liable for any damage they cause unless the animal is on its own property. Mostly

[JonInMiddleGA]

If he was paying attention we would notice a dog running into the street.

"Noticing" a dog running into the street and having adequate time to avoid the collision are often two dramatically different things.

[SnDvls]

"Noticing" a dog running into the street and having adequate time to avoid the collision are often two dramatically different things.

again if he was speeding he wouldn't have adequate time, but then if he was driving the speed limit he most likely would.

I think both cases are stupid and I hope a judge throws them both out and tells them to get out of his court room.

Does someone sue God or the state parks dept. when they hit a deer/moose/elk? No, you can not predict what an animal is going to do.

I'm waiting for all the facts to come out in this case for sure.

[MikeVic]

wtf. How do you know driving the speed limit gives enough time to stop when a dog darts onto the street.

A dog is a pet though. If a squirrel lost its footing and fell on your windshield, cracking it, you can't do anything about that. But a dog has a link to an owner.

[rkmsuf]

I gun it if I see cats in the road.

[wade moore]

I hate seeing this thread.... I have two Miniature Pinschers :(.

[BrianD]

again if he was speeding he wouldn't have adequate time, but then if he was driving the speed limit he most likely would.

This is going to be an awfully tough assertion to support given the current information. Would going 36 in a 35 zone really make the difference between hitting the dog or not? Is it only speeding if you are going <insert arbitrary amount here> over the speed limit? Was the down running down the middle of the road or did it jump out from behind a parked car? Way too many variables to hang anything on speed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Way too many variables to hang anything on speed.

This hits my response pretty well spot on*.

The most obvious problem is that speed has to be considered in relationship to the proximity to the car where the dog entered the roadway. If he's 100 yards down the street there's one speed where a safe stop could be made, if he steps into the path less than 10 feet away there's an entirely different distance.

*("spot" pun is unintentional)

[Schmidty]

Even though he has the right to sue, the guy is a steaming pile of shit for doing so.

I hope that anyone arguing his case has the same thing happen to them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I hope that anyone arguing his case has the same thing happen to them.

Have their car damaged because someone failed to exercise proper control over their dog? And then have to go to court to try to recover the expenses caused by that failure?

Seems like an odd thing to wish on people but ... okay.

[rkmsuf]

Have their car damaged because someone failed to exercise proper control over their dog? And then have to go to court to try to recover the expenses caused by that failure?

Seems like an odd thing to wish on people but ... okay.

I'm all for it if you get some creative estimates. Possibly a little high...

[MikeVic]

Why the fuck does the driver have to pay for the damages (if this was a case where the driver wasn't speeding by a lot, and had time to stop)? The dog is the responsibility of the owner, not the driver.

[Schmidty]

Have their car damaged because someone failed to exercise proper control over their dog? And then have to go to court to try to recover the expenses caused by that failure?

Seems like an odd thing to wish on people but ... okay.

Compassion and karma are the only things that matter in that situation as far as I'm concerned.


(And by the way, of course I wouldn't want someone's pet to be killed, no matter how big a douche the person is.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Compassion and karma are the only things that matter in that situation as far as I'm concerned.

I'm all for it.

Some compassion for the property owner who suffered a financial loss through no fault of their own and some karma for the cheap bastards who fucked up and not only got their dog killed but also tried to screw someone out of cash in the process.

[Schmidty]

I'm all for it.

Some compassion for the property owner who suffered a financial loss through no fault of their own and some karma for the cheap bastards who fucked up and not only got their dog killed but also tried to screw someone out of cash in the process.

So you've never had a situation where for one second your pet or kid was out of your sight? You're that perfect?

If you were the dog owner, what would you do in this situation? Would you have offered money right away after your dog got killed, or would you wait until you got sued? If you had been sued, would you have just gone out with a wimper? I'm honesty curious about what you (and others) would have done in this situation.

[Huckleberry]

If my dog had just died then in no way would I have thought of offering to pay for the damages.

But if the driver at some point asked that I do so or came to me later asking that then I'm fairly confident that after some consideration I would pay for the damages.

In which case I would avoid court costs.

[rkmsuf]

If my dog had just died then in no way would I have thought of offering to pay for the damages.

But if the driver at some point asked that I do so or came to me later asking that then I'm fairly confident that after some consideration I would pay for the damages.

In which case I would avoid court costs.

winner

[MikeVic]

If my dog had just died then in no way would I have thought of offering to pay for the damages.

But if the driver at some point asked that I do so or came to me later asking that then I'm fairly confident that after some consideration I would pay for the damages.

In which case I would avoid court costs.

Yeah, I agree here. I wouldn't be in the state of mind to right away say "I'll pay for the repair costs." But if the driver approached me, I'd eventually agree to it.

I guess it's a bit different here, in that it would just be a deductible that the dog owner would pay... so $500 max if the driver is paying the least for insurance. And $100 minimum if the driver is paying for the most for insurance. If this was a kid, and it was the kid's fault, and the kid died... there's no way I'd ask to cover my deductible. I can spare that $200 without adding more to the parents' situation.

[Fidatelo]

Wait how big was the kid again?

[rkmsuf]

Wait how big was the kid again?

about the size of a pigman

[Daimyo]

Compassion and karma are the only things that matter in that situation as far as I'm concerned.


(And by the way, of course I wouldn't want someone's pet to be killed, no matter how big a douche the person is.)
How far does that extend? What if the guy can't afford to fix his car, loses his job for lack of transportation, and ends up homeless? Does that then make it okay for him to ask for the money?

Neither party wanted this to happen, but the driver is completely innocent in this. Why should he be out $2000?

[JonInMiddleGA]

So you've never had a situation where for one second your pet or kid was out of your sight? You're that perfect?

The absence of perfection does nothing to change bearing the responsibility. Nor do I imagine it would do much to relieve the guilt of the screw up. And more specifically to your question, I have never once in my entire life had a pet "escape" {knock on wood, hard & twice for certainty}, not even a couple who were very door curious. And no, not once ever, has my child gone out the door without my knowledge for any reason (likely because he knows full well that my reaction to him ever doing would be far more dangerous than anything outside). And no, until he reached a level where I was firmly convinced he knew better than to step into traffic for any reason whatsoever was he left unsupervised outside. Back in my reporter days I wrote too many stories than involved a child injury or fatality that included some take on the phrase "left unsupervised for just a moment", gives you a heightened awareness of the danger I guess. I'm not going to claim perfection as a parent or a pet parent, but damned if I don't work pretty hard at not screwing up something that's such a fundamental responsibility either.

If you were the dog owner, what would you do in this situation? Would you have offered money right away after your dog got killed, or would you wait until you got sued?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I would have made the offer, as I would have been pretty darned sure I was legally responsible for the damages and damned sure I was ethically responsible for them (assuming the driver was operating normally; i.e. didn't drive through my yard to hit the dog). It isn't likely to be made until after the immediate situation is dealt with (checking the dog, emergency vet trip if needed, etc.) but sooner rather than later. With what I've seen about the situation, there's pretty much no chance in hell I would have waited around to get sued.

[DanGarion]

$2400 for a dog? Wow.
I'd tell them to spend 60 bucks for the paperwork at a shelter, they are wasting money buying a dog for that much.


But I'm 100% behind the guy, these people have to be responsible for their property.

Dog runs out and gets hit and does damage is the same as if you forgot to set your parking break and your car rolled out into the street and hit someone.

[DanGarion]

Why should the parents be liable for their kid doing something he knows he shouldn't do? If he knows he shouldn't do it, shouldn't he be liable? I think if I was a parent and got sued because my 12 year old damaged some dudes front bumper when he darted into traffic I'd sue my kid for the amount that I'm being sued for, plus maybe some damages to my image and self-esteem.

You must be replying sarcastically here...

[DanGarion]

again if he was speeding he wouldn't have adequate time, but then if he was driving the speed limit he most likely would.


What world do you live in? Does your neighborhood have no vehicles parked on the side of the street?

[Fidatelo]

You must be replying sarcastically here...

I never reply sarcastically.

[DanGarion]

Even though he has the right to sue, the guy is a steaming pile of shit for doing so.

I hope that anyone arguing his case has the same thing happen to them.

So let's take this another way. The dog runs out into the road, and he is able to react by swerving out of the way of the dog, which in turn he crashes into another car and kills someone else. Who is responsible for this? (he was going the speed limit and abiding all driving laws).

[wade moore]

I'd tell them to spend 60 bucks for the paperwork at a shelter, they are wasting money buying a dog for that much.


But I'm 100% behind the guy, these people have to be responsible for their property.

Dog runs out and gets hit and does damage is the same as if you forgot to set your parking break and your car rolled out into the street and hit someone.
FWIW - Min Pins cost nowhere near $2400, I have no idea where this person is buying them. Even rip-off artists, puppy mill pet stores it's like $850 - local breeder it's closer to $400.

[SnDvls]

What world do you live in? Does your neighborhood have no vehicles parked on the side of the street?

nope against HOA regulations

[Eaglesfan27]

exactly.

I would be curious about the guys financial situation.

I'm late to the thread, but I'm guessing it isn't good by the choice of cars as well as the fact that he is working two jobs. This suit may be a financial necessity.

[Mota]

The Munthes have filed a $2,400 countersuit against Ely for the cost to buy Fester, the time they had to take off work for court appearances, and the cost of buying a dog to replace Fester.

That's not fair, they're suing for 2 dogs!

[Cringer]

nope against HOA regulations

Does that mean you can't have more then a few friends/family over at a time if they are coming over in their own cars?

[Noop]

A few of you I am afraid are off the reservation. I can not understand how some of you place more value in the life of an animal then a human. Sorry if the dog is dead but the guy is not a douche for asking for money. Through no fault of his own he incurred damages and since the dog is someone's property he has every right to demand his car be fixed. dangarion's example is pretty fair and I agree with him. What if the driver tried to avoid the dog and hurt a human being? Who is at fault?

[Fidatelo]

Why is no one suing the estate of the dog? Shouldn't the driver just get a food bowl, water dish, a few half-chewed rawhides, 3 tennis balls, and maybe a dog bed?

[JonInMiddleGA]

What if the driver tried to avoid the dog and hurt a human being? Who is at fault?

Just off the top of my head, I think that probably goes on the driver, as he's responsible for safely operating the vehicle. Replace "somebody's dog" with "random squirrel" and see if you don't end up at the same place.

[Noop]

I am under the impression that normal people will not swerve for a squirrel.

[Ironhead]

I am huge on animal rights and just yesterday took a 7th cat into my household. All rescued, save one. From a cool and dispassionate glance I cannot fault the driver for seeking damages. I think the report intentionally gives some clues into the driver's financial status as it states the year, make and model of his car and also that he works 2 jobs. If you are working two jobs the last thing you need is any trouble with your car. If it were my dog I would be emotionally stung by the suit but hopefully could view and understand where the other person was coming from.

[Vince]

Speaking of kids getting hit by cars and damages...

When my little brother was about 13, he got hit by a car while riding his bike on the way to Football practice. He was in full pads, and the guy was making a right turn, going about 10 MPH in a small pickup truck. Ronnie flew a few feet and landed, but was pretty much ok. He put a sizable dent in the pickup's hood. Things got handled, people went on their way.

The pickup's owner called us about 3 days later asking us to pay for the repair on the hood of the truck. My dad told him he'd be happy to pay, if the guy came over in person so he could beat the shit out of him before he gave him the money. The guy never showed up.

[Vince]

Dola - in the interest of full disclosure, Ronnie was in the crosswalk when he was hit, the driver was completely at fault.

[Neon_Chaos]

Kids are not pets. Stop comparing them.

[Dekanth]

Strange to see this thread. I have a client who has a 2007 Mustang, some kind of limited edition, maybe a Shelby?? I'm not too good with makes and models of cars. He rarely drives it, just on some weekends, but weekend before last a dog jumps in front of it and he hits it going about 35. Totally fucked up the whole front end. Thousands of dollars of damage. The dog was OK, limping a bit, but seemed fine. My client is trying to get them to pay for the damages, but I don't think they have the money. His insurance company said he is covered, but subject to his deductible of $500. They laid out his 2 options. (1) get the guy to give you 500 bucks, therefore you are not out anything and your car gets fixed. (2) if he doesn't give you the 500, let the insurance company know and they will go after him for the full amount. I'm not sure where it stands right now.

Now, whether the dog was hurt, killed, or just fine, it really doesn't matter. This dog was off its leash, and in traffic. There was no way to avoid the collision. Why should my client be out anything? I am all for sueing, or doing whatever you can to make yourself whole again. My client could afford the 500 bucks no problem, but why should he have to??

[Dekanth]

So let's take this another way. The dog runs out into the road, and he is able to react by swerving out of the way of the dog, which in turn he crashes into another car and kills someone else. Who is responsible for this? (he was going the speed limit and abiding all driving laws).

The driver of the car.

Here is another weird insurance/legal situation somewhat related:

If you hit a deer, it is covered under comprehensive. Most reputable insurance companies will not raise your rates for comp claims. If you swerve to miss the deer and hit a tree or something, it is covered under collision and considered at fault. Up go your rates. Many auto policies have a 100 or 200 comp deductible and a 500 collision.

The moral of the story, it is financially better for you to hit the deer! Go figure.

[Horizon]

I wonder if the dog's damage would be covered under your home owners policy?

[Bad-example]

Kids are not pets. Stop comparing them.

But what if your kid ran out into the street and got hit by a dog?