Family asked to pay for car damage after dog run over and killed

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Family asked to pay for car damage after dog run over and killed

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0527/family-asked-pay-car-damage-dog-run-killed/

By Agence France-Presse
Thursday, May 27th, 2010 -- 4:08 pm

OTTAWA — A car insurer has asked a Canadian family to pay for repairing a broken bumper after their dog was struck by the vehicle and died, local media said Thursday.

The traffic accident occurred in March while Jake, a 12-year-old yellow Labrador, was out for his daily stroll around a quiet neighborhood in Aurora, Ontario, north of Toronto.

Kim Flemming had let the dog out when she arrived home from work. Moments later, a man knocked on the door to say a car had run over Jake.

"I got to the road and he was dying," Flemming told the Toronto Star. "He died in my arms."

Two months later, the family received a bill in the mail for 1,732.80 Canadian dollars (1,648.95 US) from State Farm Insurance.

The letter said Flemming had been found responsible for damage to the vehicle. "As such, we are looking to you for reimbursement," it reportedly stated.

State Farm spokesman John Bordignon told the Star: "They could have made sure their dog wasn't free on the roadway."

A local bylaw requires pets to be on a leash when off the owner's property, but the Flemmings said Jake had become accustomed to roaming outside the family's home.

State Farm was not immediately available for further comment.

"We've lost a member of our family but we're supposed to pay for the damage to her bumper? That's just wrong," daughter Katherine Flemming said.

[Joanne98]

1. I loath insurance companies!

[onehandle]

4. State Farm is the worst one of all. nt

[era veteran]

93. I hate State Farm from experience with homeowners policy

They dropped us years ago for no reason. It was a year or so after Hugo and they dropped tons of people for no reason other than age of the house. Hugo, we live in Kentucky!! No use complaining to the State Insurance Commissioner, that office serves the insurance companies not the people.

[harun]

107. U and me both.

[TexasObserver]

2. The blame lies with pet's owner, who should be responsible.

The pet is property of its owner, who has the responsibility to keep his property off the roadway, except legally.

This isn't about the dog. It's about the owner of the dog, who is hiding behind the dog killed due to the dog owner's negligence.

[truebrit71]

6. Um, no..pretty sure the car killed the dog...

..they should counter-sue the car's owner for negligence and emotional damages...

[TexasObserver]

9. No. The car has a right to be on the road. The dog doesn't.

The dog owner was negligent and should pay damages to the car owner or its insurer.

There is no indication that the driver was negligent, but we know the dog owner was negligent.

When an accident happens on a public road, the first question asked is "who was at fault?"

We determine fault by asking "who was legally within his lane of traffic, legally operating his vehicle?"

If a vehicle has the right of way and is legally proceeding, and a person or dog suddenly steps in front of the vehicle, it is not the vehicle's fault. It's the pedestrian's fault, or the dog owner's fault. If the dog was allowed to roam freely, the dog's owner is liable. If the dog got out because the dog owner didn't secure the dog properly, the dog owner is liable. Either way, a dog in the middle of the road equals negligence by its owner.

[truebrit71]

15. No, the driver should not hit objects in the road such as large animals..

But your solution is so much better...

Make the grieving family of a lost pet, PAY for the damage to an inanimate object driven by someone too fucking stupid or slow to avoid hitting a large animal?

Nice compassion there... :eyes:

[TexasObserver]

20. The dog is dead because of its owner, not the car the dog hit.

The car didn't hit the dog. The dog hit the car. That's how dogs kill themselves on roads. They run under or into the car.

The car belongs on the road. The dog doesn't.

Rail at the dog's irresponsible owner. She killed him.

[truebrit71]

23. The dog is dead because of the fact that it got hit by a car. The owner did not kill the dog.

..the driver of the car that didn't stop in time/swerve/avoid the large animal in the road killed the dog...

[Tailormyst]

31. The owners actions killed the dog.

The dog was not leashed or fenced in.

[TexasObserver]

33. Nonsense. You don't get to decide the law of such events.

500 years of English-American-Canadian jurisprudence is quite clear on such matters. If you have an animal that enters the road and causes an accident, you are liable, except in rare circumstances which do not exist here.

The dog owner was negligent, just as a parent who allowed a two year child to run along the road and chase cars would be negligent. We hold responsible the person who CAUSED the accident, not the one who happened to be sitting the car that the dog attacked.

You seem unwilling to accept that your notion of justice does not apply anywhere English is spoken as the dominant language.

[xocet]

103. Wow....

The dog attacked the car...? Can you produce the police report or are you just smoking Texas ditch weed?

[Dappleganger]

38. OK, then the car should have swerved into a goddamn tree and risked THEIR LIVES

in order to avoid the dog in the street. Is that right???

BTW, one of my daughter's best friends in life died in a car crash because he tried to swerve to avoid hitting a raccoon running across the road. He ran into a tree in the median and was instantly killed at the age of 17 while on his way to work at an internship last summer. The raccoon lived, btw. Is this how you think people should be required to drive when they are on the road???

[renate]

82. I was taught in driver's ed to keep driving when there's an animal, no matter what...

I tell my kids the same thing--they don't drive yet, but I want keeping on going, not braking, to become their automatic default. I certainly don't want a squirrel or especially a dog or cat to ever get killed, but I also don't want my kids to be injured because a wild animal, or an animal that couldn't be kept in its yard (I have one, so I'm not judging), decided to cross the street.

So, yeah... I tell them that, but I've reflexively stopped for squirrels at least a dozen times. It's a really tough reflex to override.

I'm so, so sorry about your daughter's friend. That is just too heartbreaking for words. :cry: I can't imagine how your daughter, and her friend's family, are coping with such a random and sudden loss. :hug:

[Dappleganger]

92. You're right, it's a hard reflex to avoid.

I know I've slammed the brakes a few times and it's very hard to just drive through it.

Thanks...Tre and my daughter and two other girls were a tight-knit group from 3rd grade, through middle school into high school. Their class graduates on June 5th and they're going to have a special moment to remember him. The class got together and took out a big one-page ad in the yearbook as a tribute, too. It was very sudden and so shocking (he was wearing his seatbelt). I can't imagine what his parents are going through now knowing their baby boy should be graduating next week. :(

[theHandpuppet]

42. What an ignorant statement

Obviously you've never experienced the trauma of hitting a dog or cat who has run out in fromt of your car. I HAVE. Sometimes there's no time to swerve or even hit the brakes.

[TexasObserver]

48. Amen. I nearly have a heart attack any time an animal runs out in front.

Raccoons, turtles, armadillos and squirrels are in the road frequently around here.

But the dogs off leash are the worst, because they attack the car from an ambush position on the property they deem themselves to be protecting. The other animals just happen to be in the road temporarily, on their way to somewhere else.

[11 Bravo]

59. Holy shit! Did you forget the sarcasm smilie?

I have been a dog owner for over 40 years, purebreds, mutts, you name it. My family currently shares a home with our rescue Lab. We all love our sweet girl WAY to much to let her run free. Reflexively blaming the driver without knowing a fucking thing about the circumstances of the accident is beyond asinine. As for suing for damages, I would not do so, but what if the individual is living from paycheck-to-paycheck and can't afford to repair the family car? Yeah, it's hypothetical, but since you don't know the first damned thing about the situation, it's the equivalent of your knee-jerk response.

[TommyO]

66. The owner was responsible for maintaining control of the dog

She was negligent in that duty, the dog ran into the road and was struck by a motorist who didn't have time to stop the vehicle due to the random nature of the incident.

This falls solely on the dog's owner and nobody else.

[liberalhistorian]

27. The dog might have run out into the road in front of the car

before it could stop. That's generally how such things happen. It's not always the fault of the driver when an animal is hit. Sometimes, but not always. The point is, this dog shouldn't have been allowed to have been roaming free in the first place. That doesn't negate the owners' grief, of course not, but, in this instance, the law is on the side of the insurance company.

[TexasObserver]

41. Most drivers try very hard to avoid hitting dogs.

I slow down for a dog on or by the road at least once a month. It's always unsettling to see a dog running loose along the road, whether there's a close encounter or not. Nothing makes my heart jump more than a dog that almost hits me. Typically, they dart out from an ambush position on the property they claim as theirs. You don't even see the worst of them until they're right there.

No one blames the dog. He's just being a dog, doing what nature tells him he must do.

[TwilightGardener]

45. Now that is not true. I have seen exactly the opposite.

[TexasObserver]

51. Really? How many times have you seen a driver try to hit a dog?

I'll say it again. Most drivers try very hard to avoid hitting a dog.

[TwilightGardener]

53. I have watched many, many drivers not slow down or veer AT ALL

when there is a dog, cat, raccoon, whatever, in the road or on the side of the road. Lots of people will not bother.

[Dappleganger]

30. You've got to be fucking kidding.

Compassion has NOTHING to do with leash laws. Leash laws are there so that people AND animals won't get hurt.

What if that car had hit the dog, flipped over into a nearby ditch and killed their child in a car seat. Who would be liable then?? I love animals to death and have a bunch of them, but they are ALWAYS on a leash because it's MY JOB AS THE OWNER to keep them out of the road away from cars.

[MicaelS]

65. People who let their dogs run loose get dead dogs...

That's a fact. People don't want dead dogs or cats, then keep them fenced, leashed or inside.

About 25 years ago I was riding my bicycle at night (9pm). I passed a family sitting on their darkened front porch (no porch light on, and no street light) with their new dog. The dog was not leashed, and the front yard was not fenced. The dog dashed into the street and started chasing me. As it did, a car close behind me ran right over the dog. The dog literally ran right in front of the car in its pursuit of me. There was no way the driver could have swerved without hitting me, or running into a house across the street. The driver was driving the posted speed for that street. He could not have braked in time, because by the time he saw the dog it was in front of his car. It was not my fault, nor the driver's fault. It was the fault of the family who did not have their dog properly restrained. The dog was killed right in front the entire family, children included. So three children got to see their brand new dog killed right in front of them. I stopped and talked to the father, and he didn't blame me, nor the driver.

And if you think people should risk their lives, the lives of their passengers, or other people driving or riding, for an animal, or even be sacrificed for animals, you have a warped and perverted sense of morality.

[Canuckistanian]

70. Are you an accountant?

Because you certainly have the soul of an accountant.

All regulation and ZERO compassion.

[TexasObserver]

71. Are you rational?

Please prove it.

[Canuckistanian]

75. A rational person would see that this is a tragic accident

Not a situation where scratches and dents are coldy calculated as if the dog were some inanimate object such as a child's wagon.

This is not the attitude in Canada. We don't go around suing people for damage when we've accidentally killed someone's family pet.

[TexasObserver]

78. No, they'd see it as an irresponsible dog owner causing damage.

Canadian courts are more aggressive at holding defendants liable than most US courts.

The tenor of Canadian litigation is more civil than that among American litigators and parties, but it's still feisty and robust, and it holds tortfeasors accountable more readily.

Again, blame the dog owner for this tragic death of the dog, as well as for the economic damage that resulted.

By the way, do you know who proves up the economic damages in Canada? Accountants. Forsenic accountants. You really should explore the world of Canadian litigation. It's more aggressive at holding defendants liable than the US.

[Canuckistanian]

83. Go back to your actuarial tables

I was talking about human decency.

[TexasObserver]

84. Human decency mandates that we hold the irresponsible dog owner responsible.

You're upside down on this.

[Canuckistanian]

86. And I think some allowance should be made for the loss of a family member

I'm sure there are a lot of legal precedents for that as well.

[TexasObserver]

88. No family member was lost.

The animal is property, however attached to it they may be.

The legal precedents hold that.

[hack89]

89. What if $1600 is a huge burden on the driver?

not everyone has that kind of cash put aside for emergencies. Why should the death of a pet due to the owners negligence shift that cost to the driver simply because the owner is really sad and upset? If the owner hadn't been such a dumb ass the dog would still be alive.

[Gaedel]

79. Most people don't sue

the owner of the animal because they feel bad for the person's loss of a companion and do not wish to "pile on". As noted above, they do have the legal right to so do.

[Canuckistanian]

81. Thank you.

Of course they have the LEGAL right, but for reasons of decency and compassion, they don't.

This is all I'm saying.

[Ikonoklast]

14. No. The dog owner was negligent.

And any emotional damages were done not to the owner, but to the driver who accidentally hit the poor dog.

I'm sure that made his day.


ANYONE that lets their pets run free need them taken from them as negligent owners.

[liberalhistorian]

I have to agree with you for the most part;. However, as a

lifelong pet owner and general sucker for animals, I have a lot of compassion and sympathy for the pet owners. I've lost animals throughout my life through both natural causes and accidents (including with cars), and it's always devastating. You really do feel as if you've lost a close part of the family, although I'd never go so far as to say it's just like losing an actual human family member 'cause it ain't and will never be the same. So, yes, there are some very heavy emotional damages to the owners and anyone who says otherwise has never had a pet or doesn't like animals or simply lacks a heart.

But I do agree that, unfortunately, the owners were at fault and shouldn't have allowed the dog to be roaming free. And the person responsible for hitting the dog had to have had a difficult emotional time of it as well. I'm certainly no fan of insurance companies, but they are correct in this instance and the law is on their side as well.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. Beside being wrong on liability, one can not sue for emotional damage for a pet.

I don't agree with it but pets are property - under the law. You are required to keep your property out of traffic. Failing to do so results in liability on YOUR part.

Even if there were some other scenario where the driver was liable - Say for instance the driver ran up the sidewalk and hit your pet. The driver would only be responsible for the COST of the animal. Again, I don't agree with it and I always wonder WHEN that theory will be overturned in court. To say pets are not integral parts of some families, mine included, is ludicrous.

[Tailormyst]

29. or the dog running loose in front of the moving car killed the dog.

I think all depends on the circumstances of the accident

[Chulanowa]

10. Bingo, +1

A pet owner who "lets the dog out" to run around the neighborhood, is the one liable both for harm to that pet, and damage that pet causes to others. There's no argument possible otherwise.

I loathe insurance companies, but, sorry, they're right this time.

The poor dog, though.

[blueamy66]

64. And all of our insurance premiums

will rise because of a greedy SOB.

[TexasObserver]

69. No, the insurance premiums would be reduced, theoretically.

The insurance company is the plaintiff against the dog owner. The recovery by the insurance company helps to keep insurance premiums down. We as insurance consumer benefit from the negligent dog owner being held responsible.

Who do you think is being greedy? The car owner? Their insurer? The dog owner?

The guilty party is the dog owner. The car owner covered their loss by use of insurance, and now the insurer is stepping into the shoes of the car owner and requiring the dog owner to reimburse the insurer. That's as it should be. No greed.

[blueamy66]

80. I misread the original post.

I thought that the driver of the car was going after the dog owner.

It's really a no win situation.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JerseygirlCT]

85. I'm afraid I agree with you

Because their neighbors seemed to have tolerated Jake's running free doesn't mean they were any less obligated to leash him or keep him on their own property.

It's pretty cruel to ask them to pay, but I think the insurance company has the law on their side on this.

[BoneDaddy]

90. What would people be saying about the situation if...

it was a bus load of children that crashed? A hazardous waste vehicle?

I am a dog lover and feel for these people. I think Statefarm is being petty and totally insensitive.

Unfortunately, they are also legally in the right. If there was an ordinance requirining pet owners to keep their dogs contained then that is the law and ultimately if the dog was not, they are still accountable.

The problem is when we confuse our emotional reaction with the law in the situation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

100. I agree

They should have kept their dog out of the street. If they had he'd be alive now.

[flvegan]

3. While I'm terribly sorry for their loss, and for Jake...don't let your pets roam.

I'm also not surprised that State Farm is going after them for damages. Seems hateful, but their property was negligently attended.

Poor Jake.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. They should pay double. Once to the car owner/insurance ...

... and a donation to a shelter for being dumb-fucks who refuse to keep their pet safe.

Poor doggie.

[TwilightGardener]

12. My dog was hit by a car--he survived. He had a habit of bolting

out the door if my kids held the door open a fraction of a second too long. I felt bad, but sometimes even dog owners who know better and try to keep their dogs inside or leashed can have this happen to them.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. I don't disagree that accidents DO happen.

But that doesn't seem to be the case here. The article says the pet owner released the pet for his evening stroll in a "quiet neighborhood" ... not so quiet I guess. I don't know how anyone can let their pet roam ANYWHERE near traffic un-leashed AND un-attended.

My dog is off-leash only at fenced in dog parks and my in-law's acreage in the country. Even in the country she isn't allowed to roam away from me in fear she will roam near a road. I would NEVER let her roam free.

[TwilightGardener]

26. I think the owner was irresponsible, yes--but as someone said below, making

the bereaved owners pay for bumper damage...damn, that's cold and heartless.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

36. Oh I agree it's cold and heartless. Insurance companies usually are.

So is the law.

I'm just having a hard time feeling sorry for the dog owner. I feel REALLY bad for the dog. Maybe this "fine" will save their next pet's life because she will keep it on a leash or in a fenced yard.

[Dappleganger]

40. Cold and heartless?

What is cold and heartless is not leashing or containing your pet on a regular basis (read the article, the dog was allowed to regularly roam). It's the owner's fault, not the driver's.

[TwilightGardener]

44. I said they were irresponsible--but what does State Farm do when

a driver hits a deer?

[Dappleganger]

54. They sue God.

:sarcasm:



Seriously, hitting a deer is like being involved w/an uninsured motorist or a hit and run--there is no way to get money out of that situation. But obviously those are not the same because no one owns the deer. Now if instead of a deer you hit a cow (when we lived in farm country in VA, this happened at least once a year in that area), the owner of the cow was held liable for any damages incurred because it is their reasonable duty to keep their animals penned up.

[TwilightGardener]

56. In this case, I just don't feel that State Farm should have gone after the owner.

Do they have a right to do so? Sure. But if I had been the driver and knew that SF was going to send the owners the bill, I'd have just tried to pay for the bumper myself. That's the way I am. Not saying anyone else is the same way. I won't kick grief-stricken dog owners when they're down.

[Dappleganger]

61. Now that's another issue entirely.

Not everyone wants their insurance company involved in *any* accident, especially ones which will not be much over a deductible. That has nothing to do with whether or not a dog was involved.

The insurance company doesn't have feelings, but they do have a duty to keep THEIR costs down by recovering any monies owed to them through lawful means.

[TommyO]

67. You go after the responsible party, in this case, the dog's owner.

Bumpers aren't cheap, why should the car's owner eat the cost for somebody else's negligence?

[tammywammy]

60. Exactly

Deer is a wild animal, versus a dog or cow.

[Brickbat]

7. A similar case happened in my neck of the woods a few years ago...guy hit a dog and then sued the

dog's owner for damages. The insurance company didn't get involved; a judge dismissed the lawsuit.

I know dogs get out, but you're responsible if they do.

[DesertFlower]

8. i'm sorry for the loss of the dog, but

the dog should not have been out without a leash.

last week a facebook friend's daughter found her cat dead in the road. it had been hit by a car. i told her that i was sorry but it's dangerous to let cats out. she said "she realized that, but doesn't think an animal should be confined". WTF? my cat is quite happy to roam around the house and sleep about 18 hours a day.

[Chulanowa]

11. That's lazy-speak for "I don't want to clean the litterbox"

Just like in the story, I'll bet "I let the dog out" is lazy-speak for "I wanted to watch TV"

[DesertFlower]

34. i did say to her

"i guess it's easier than dealing with a litter pan". she didn't answer.

[RamboLiberal]

13. I fault the dog owner on this one

Be different if the dog had accidentally gotten on the road.

[Liberal_in_LA]

91. Maybe but the insurance company should have some sympathy.

[walldude]

17. Wow lots of love for the driver...

I wonder how people would feel if this was a kid...

THe story doesn't say but if this happened outside of the family home then this was a residential street, and they guy should have been driving slow enough to stop if something was in the road. I could see if it was a highway or something but...

And all that is besides the point, it seems to be a bit cold blooded to me to run over someones dog and then ask them to pay damages.

[TwilightGardener]

21. Lots of people won't even swerve for a dog, or slow down. Seen that more times

than I can remember.

[truebrit71]

24. No shit right?.."the owner was negligent it was their own fault"...this is still DU right?

You know, where people from the LEFT of centre hang out?

[liberalhistorian]

37. Being "left of center" does not mean that you do not

hold people accountable for their irresponsibility and negligence. Yes, I feel terrible for the owners' loss, especially being a lifelong pet owner myself, but that doesn't negate their irresponsibility in allowing their dog to roam free without a leash, knowing that he could get onto the street. And it doesn't take much to seriously hurt or kill an animal; getting hit even at 25 mph, the limit of most residential streets, can easily kill or do serious damage.

[Tailormyst]

39. Yes the owner WAS at fault and it has jack shit to do with politics.

The owners were irresponsible and their behavior got their dog killed. It's very sad, but it certainly isn't the drivers fault. He was driving on a road where he is supposed to be. The dog was running out into a road where he should not have been.

[hack89]

73. Responsibility is still a progressive value.

the pet owner was irresponsible - he should pay.

[xocet]

106. Yep....

Error 417: Expectation Failed

---

Fri May 28 2010 1:00 am CST
This thread is currently executing in an alternative userspace.
Priority inversion.

[TexasObserver]

25. If this was a kid, the parents would be criminally prosecuted.

Any owner who lets their dog run loose near the road is the person responsible for any incident between their dog and a vehicle.

We don't allow dogs to run freely because we know they chase cars, and sometimes they catch one and it kills the dog. Then we all have to put up with the horror, the mess, and the damage.

Your sympathy should be with the driver, whose day was ruined and whose time and money eaten up by getting the damage repaired.

[walldude]

47. My sympathy should be with the driver who's day was ruined

when he was driving so fast in a residential zone that he couldn't stop for a dog in the road...

Well personally I'm glad I don't derive my humanity from you.


So kids shouldn't be allowed to play in front of their homes? Funny I seem to remember many a street baseball game in front of my house. And the drivers would stop and wait for us to move if they needed to get by.

[TexasObserver]

58. You're making things up to suit your storyline.

There is no hint of fault on the driver of the car.

The law is on the side of the driver. It holds the dog owner responsible.

[liberalhistorian]

63. The driver wouldn't have had to have been driving all that

fast, frankly. Even the typical residential speed of 25 mph can easily cause death or serious injury. And the dog may very well have run out in front of the car before it could stop.

[stranger81]

109. And if it was a kid, the driver would also likely be criminally prosecuted.

How heartless must you be to not only kill someone's dog, but then demand the owners pay you for your trouble?

[Tailormyst]

35. The driver did nothing wrong............

If the dog were leashed or fenced it would not have been able to run in front of the moving car.

[Dappleganger]

57. That's what some on this thread just don't get--the driver did NOTHING wrong.

If he had, the authorities would have ticketed him as driving recklessly or for speeding. That's not the case.

[Catherina]

43. Thank you n/t

[ampad]

52. Hmmm...

How would you feel if the dog was killed by some other means? The article states that the dog was let out regularly. What if on that regular stroll he got a hold of some poison? What if he got on someone's property and was shot? What if he were attacked by some other dogs? The point is that the dog owner had a responsibility to that dog to keep him safe. Keeping him safe does not mean allowing him to go on a nightly stroll unsupervised. Also, are you trying to compare the life of a child to a dog? Sorry, I am a parent and a dog owner. I would have to say I would have more compassion for a dead child than a dead dog. As a parent and a dog owner I know and understand I have a responsibility to keep my children and my dogs safe. That means not allowing them to "roam" around free.

[Warpy]

18. That bill should be the least of it

That dog is dead and the car was damaged because Flemming was too bone lazy to walk her dog around the block to do his business.

I have absolutely nothing but contempt for such dog owners.

[Dappleganger]

62. Thank you, those were my thoughts as well.

Not, "Poor owner!"

If people would just walk their dogs as they should, there wouldn't be any problem here.

[ampad]

19. No excuse for that poor dog's death

There are all kinds of gadgets and preventive measures to keep your dog in the yard. The dog owners were in the wrong to let the dog run off like that. I have a neighbor that allows her dog to run free. The poor dog will just sit in the middle of the road. I asked her why don't you try an invisible fence. She says she does not like the dog to get shocked. I guess getting hit by a car is less painful. Go figure.

[Tailormyst]

28. If the dog was loose and ran in front of the car causing damage...

then as bad as I feel for the owners, legally they would be obligated.

[joeybee12]

32. That's why they have leash laws...they really need to be followed...

never assume your dog will be safe out there.

That said, the insurance company--surprise, surprise--are dicks.

[Junkie Brewster]

46. This is how my first dog died

We had a gated backyard. The neighbor's kid would come by and mow our lawn (which was pretty large- this was an old house) every other week during the summer. Once, however, he neglected to latch the gate. My husband let our dogs out when he got home. I came home a few minutes later and our beloved dog was in the front yard. I tried to get him to come into the car, I tried to get him into the house, I tried to grab him, but he ran into the road.

One of our neighbors actually sped up to hit him. He was less than ten feet away from me- my husband thought I had been hit by the truck as well. He died in front of my eyes. Years later, writing this still brings tears to my eyes. I saw the accident every time I closed my eyes for the better part of a year. I actually insisted on selling our house and moving to a different part of our suburban town, because even seeing the spot where he died is still difficult.

[TwilightGardener]

49. It's traumatic to watch your own dog get hit, I know--something you

never forget. :(

[Withywindle]

95. I'm so sorry for your loss.

That is really freakin' horrible, and for people expressing disbelief at the idea that someone could DELIBERATELY try to hit an animal....it happens all the goddamn time. How many really horrible deliberate animal-cruelty stories get posted here every day? How can anyone doubt that there are people who will do this? Of course they do.

I'm not saying this is the case here, it doesn't sound like it, but I remember having a dog hit in front of me too, when I was a child. It wasn't a deliberate thing - the driver stopped, and he seemed almost as devastated as we were.

We'd thought it was OK to have the dogs running around supervised, it being a very rural area and all, but this was just on a normal evening stroll, and it happened so fast. After that, my parents got really obsessive about building serious fences all around the yard.

:hug:

[Romulox]

50. The dog-owner is responsible for the damage. This isn't even a close case. nt

[tammywammy]

55. It's very sad their dog died, but they are responsible for the damage too.

They shouldn't have let him roam free like that.

[marshall]

68. It happens all the time with cattle

If a farmer lets his or her fence fall into disrepair and a cow gets out, they are responsible for any damage caused when a car hits said cattle.

[Nikki Stone1]

72. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I just thousands of cattle wandering the road hitting cars. :rofl:

[Obamanaut]

74. This excerpt from the OP explains it, the owners became accustomed

to being negligent: "...A local bylaw requires pets to be on a leash when off the owner's property, but the Flemmings said Jake had become accustomed to roaming outside the family's home...."

Jake had become accustomed to roaming free because of the owner's negligence.

[JerseygirlCT]

87. That seems to be the case

And as sorry as I feel for them, it really was their negligence that put their pet in that position.

[hayu_lol]

94. Oregon has what is called 'open range' laws...

generally see the signs posted up in the mountain areas. Going across the passes at night in wintertime can be a real adventure. Cows wander freely through the forests and over the highways. You can come around a curve on a black night, maybe a bit of fog or light snow, and suddenly be surrounded by cows in the middle of the road. Hit one and the driver is liable. Sounds idiotic but thats the way the laws are written.

[csziggy]

98. But in areas where that is the law, drivers should know enough to be warned

The one trip I ever took out west I was a little startled to see the signs warning about cattle loose on the roads, but I could deal with that.

Here, there used to be signs on a couple of the country roads warning about cattle crossings - they were where dairy cows were pastured on one side of the road and had to cross morning and evening to go to the milking barns.

Also, here in Florida, livestock owners are required to have fences good enough to keep their livestock in. If my horses (or my clients' horses) get loose and cause an accident or cause damage to others' property, I am liable for damages.

I threw out some clients because their daughter was incapable of properly fastening gates, but she continued to allow the kid to put the horses out without checking. After the third time I had to chase down her horses and catch them on the road, I evicted them - refunded her board and gave her twentyfour hours to get them off the property.

She not only endangered her horses, she endangered a half dozen more, the drivers on the roads, and incidentally me since I had to be out there chasing all those horses. I felt very lucky that no one and no animal was hurt during those incidents.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lucian]

96. That's fucked up.

[Berserker]

97. I side with

State farm. I deal with insurance companies everyday for a living and I understand the position they are taking.

[Cleita]

99. We have our "pest" dogs, whose owners let them run free and

it's legal. But most of the owners keep their dogs on their property for the same reason they keep their horses on their property, so they don't get hit by cars or get into other trouble. One neighbor got bitten by another neighbor's dog who came on his property and picked a fight with his dog and he tried to separate them. Yesterday, a dog I didn't recognize tried to get on our property and had our dogs all excited with a big barkathon. I thought the dog was lost and called animal control. It turns out it was a new dog a neighbor up the road had gotten and now she's pissed with me. In the past dogs have been killed by cars because of negligent owners who think they should be able to run amok because it's the country. You'd think the road kill would give them a clue.

That said. I think the insurance company is also at fault here. It's their contract to pay for the car's damage and they are trying to weasel out of it by creating an excuse that has nothing to do with the car being damaged. What if he had run into a lamp post? Would they ask the city to pay because their lamp post was in the way?

[Berserker]

101. Lamp posts

don't wander in the road s far as I know.

[Cleita]

102. Sometimes they do if they fall over. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

108. Insurance companies are WELL within their rights to go after the negligent party ...

.... after they pay a claim. In your lamp-post falling over scenario the negligent party would be the city and its public works/maintenance department.

[Codeine]

104. I very nearly died swerving to avoid a dog.

I wrapped my Matrix around a eucalyptus stump hard enough to make the car bounce back over ten feet. Five broken ribs from the center console crushing me against the driver's door.

Fuck people who let their dogs roam in the street. :mad:

[xocet]

105. So...

"A car insurer has asked a Canadian family to pay for repairing a broken bumper after their dog was struck by the vehicle and died, local media said Thursday.
The traffic accident occurred in March while Jake, a 12-year-old yellow Labrador, was out for his daily stroll around a quiet neighborhood in Aurora, Ontario, north of Toronto.
Kim Flemming had let the dog out when she arrived home from work. Moments later, a man knocked on the door to say a car had run over Jake.
"I got to the road and he was dying," Flemming told the Toronto Star. "He died in my arms.""
(http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0527/family-asked-pay-car-damage-dog-run-killed/)

A lot of discussion on this thread assumes that the dog was hit on the roadway. The article does not say this. It says that the dog was dying when the owner reached the roadway. The dog's location is not specified. Even the subsequent statement is not an adequate description of the accident:

"State Farm spokesman John Bordignon told the Star: "They could have made sure their dog wasn't free on the roadway.""

This thread is similar to watching a tennis match played with an imaginary tennis ball. It is evident that nobody here cares for discussing the facts of the situation. Does anyone have a link to an article with more specific information?