What an idiot. A guy in our town tried to sue the owners of a dog he hit.

[LaraMN]

"Soon after a car struck and killed a dog... the driver added insult to the injury: He filed suit against the family for the damage done to his vehicle...His 1997 Honda Civic struck the 13-pound dog, killing him instantly. Now for about $1,100 for damages to his car, time he had to take off from his two jobs to get the car repaired and court fees."


http://www.cloquetmn.com/articles/index.cfm?id=13415§ion=News


The judge threw the case out, thankfully.

[kwassa]

1. In some states owners are held responsible for their animals actions

particularly if there are leash laws.

[MissMillie]

35. Yep

And no, I don't think it's terrible for the owner of the car to file claim in such circumstances.

Of course, little dogs, that much damage.... this particular case may have no merit, but others might.

[Tyler Durden]

36. Except that the damage he claims is impossible.

I did the math down thread, and I have a background in Automotive plastics, and destructive testing of bumper fascias.

[MissMillie]

37. right...

I made an addendum.... maybe before you replied.

[madinmaryland]

2. I'd be pissed if I was in that guy's shoes also. I'm assuming the guy

did not intentionally hit the dog, and now has to shell out 1100 bucks because someone could not keep their dog leashed?

[Parche]

3. Thats A Little Ruff

:hi:

[madinmaryland]

9. Arf Arf!!1!!

:hi:

[MrsMatt]

4. The dog was in the house

and slipped out. Most people do not leash their dogs in the house.

[JanMichael]

8. that's too bad.

But, the dog was theirs, and they were responsible for the damage the dog caused.

Responsibility doesn't end at the front door.

[Lyric]

10. The same could be said about owning a car.

When you buy an automobile, you accept responsibility for the fact that you are driving a large, metal death machine. You are responsible for what happens when you're driving said car--whether it was due to something you did wrong or not--just like the owners of a dog. It's true that responsibility doesn't end at the front door. It's equally true that responsibility doesn't end at the driveway or garage. If it's fair to level the "responsibility" argument at dog owners for unpredictable accidents that happen as a result of choosing to own a dog, it's also fair to level the same argument at people who choose to own and drive a car.

Both "owners" suffered negative consequences for the choice that they made, and any further action was nothing more than unwarranted selfishness and hostility. It seems the judge thought so too.

[DS1]

12. That's the most logically fucked thing I've read all week

wow!

:applause:

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Your argument works only if the car had been driven into the dog's yard

The car did nothing wrong here - it was on the road as it was supposed to be. It was the dog's fault in this case.

If the car had jumped into the yard and killed the dog, then the driver would be the one to get nailed.



Otherwise, by your logic, we could have murderers saying "Hey, responsibility doesn't end at the door - she didn't have to put herself in the way of my bullets".

:eyes:

[JanMichael]

20. Baloney.

Cars belong on the road; dogs don't.

Your argument is stupid and childish.

Our rescue dog, Scout the Wonder Dog, was found running down a major interstate.

Spare me that "Cars are lethal weapons" crap.

[harmonicon]

29. Mine is in my chest cavity, just left of center.

Where is yours?

[MrsMatt]

5. dupe post / nt

[Pierre.Suave]

6. I understand the guys reasoning...

I really do.

[JanMichael]

7. ummm sorry. I agree with guy; not the judge

In 1985 I hit a golden retriever that suddenly ran out between two parked cars. I was doing less than 25 mph. It was unavoidable, and scary.

The dog had to have his hip put back in and wear a sling for a few weeks--(I took it straight to the vet without looking for an owner--he was in pain--vet clinic less than 3 blocks away).

The owners (wealthy) tried to make me pay the bill--it was actually their vet that I took the dog to--

kid you not.

And my car needed work.

Fuck that. I would never have done anything to hurt that dog--I would never have driven off in a million years, and left that fellow on the street to find his way home injured.

But, they offered me nothing, and asked for money.

[kay1864]

14. I sorta agreed with your subject line at first...

based on just the OP, that is.

Then I read this in the article:

For (the case) to be successful, he said, Ely would have to somehow prove Fester (the dog) had established a pattern of running out into the street and the Munthes should have known to prevent it.

“Somehow, they would have to have had some sort of indication the dog would act in the way it acted that particular night,” Norha said. “Since dogs can’t communicate, it would have to be based on past behavior. I don’t know how they’re going to prove that.”

So dude, sorry about the damage to your car, but in this case it's no different than a fox or something running out in front of you.

I do feel for the owners. Poor dog.

[JanMichael]

21. I didn't ask the owners to pay for the damage to my car

But, I will never forget the vet calling me and telling me the owners wanted me to take care of the bill. I was a college student. Their house is now worth about 800,000.

Not cool.

[kay1864]

27. No no, I wasn't talking about *your* situation

Yours I understand completely (and agree with)

I meant the guy in the OP. Sounds like he didn't prove his case (so therefore I don't agree with him)

[Hobarticus]

38. Your case, and this case, have only one thing in common:

A car hit a dog.

After that, they are polar opposites.

Based on your personal experience, you think the guy should have won his case?

That would be an interesting train-of-thought ride.

[JanMichael]

42. I think I am responsible for damages caused by my pets

regardless of where they are.

I think the family that owned the dog should have been concerned with the damages to this guys property, yes. It's a shame the dog got out--we have a dog that size, and I would feel horrible if that happened to us. Accidents happen. But, when they do, we need to be adults and step up to the plate.

Sorry. I would offer to pay for the damages, or see if there was something in my homeowners, yes.

What do the two stories have in common? Both were dogs that escaped from their owners, both were in the street, and BOTH owners wanted to deny responsibility for their pet.

[Hobarticus]

48. But the damage wasn't "caused" by the dog, was it?

The car hit the dog, not the other way around.

Being an adult has nothing to do with it. I'm responsible for damages caused by my dog as well, but not for damages caused by someone hitting my dog.

[JanMichael]

50. the car belonged in the street. The dog didn't.

Look, I am just trying to say what I would do as a responsible dog owner. If you hit my dog--god, forbid, it kills me to think about it--and your car were damaged, I would offer to help. I would be broken up over my dog (we're pretty attached)but, I could still see that the other person might need some help too.

[Hobarticus]

52. Well, a lot of things don't belong in the street

But, that doesn't mean a driver's absolved of any responsibility if he plows into one of those foreign objects, nor does it mean he gets his damages paid for.

I understand where you're coming from, I do. But offering to help and being legally obliged to help are two different animals.

Yeah, I'd feel bad if my dog caused an accident, and I'd offer to pay...as long as the driver was driving within the speed limit set for that road, which would've helped them avoid the accident in the first place. If he wasn't, well, it's his own goddamned fault then. If he didn't hit my dog this time, then maybe he'll hit my neighbor's daughter the next.

I'm probably a little biased. I live on a 25 mph street that gets used for land-speed record attempts.

[Tyler Durden]

49. It would help if the damage was mathematically possible.

The physics don't work. I crunched the numbers and posted down thread. The drive is full of it. What he describes is physically impossible, unless the dog leaps 12" straight up in a window of less than .5 seconds, and the car is moving 150 mph.

The math just doesn't work.

[JanMichael]

51. well, if that's true, then hey. They don't need to worry about it, eh?

point taken.

However, I stand by what I wrote. I try to take care of my own stuff, even accidents.

[pokerfan]

11. That's nothing

In Spain, some driver sued the parents of a dead kid for the damage the boy's bicycle did to his $100K Audi.

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. If the dog's owners don't have the integrity to pay for his repairs, then he should sue.

Especially if the guy doesn't have car insurance to pay for it.

[DS1]

15. on a side note

is it even legal to drive without insurance? It's mandatory in MA and HI, the last two states I've lived in :shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. I don't think all states have mandatory insurance yet -

I don't know about MN. I asked in another thread, but have received no answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=7732347&mesg_id=7732347

[DS1]

18. Looks like it's mandatory. Hmm. Hey, check this out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=7731715&mesg_id=7731715

[LaraMN]

19. That's correct. It's mandatory. n/t

[suninvited]

60. Mandatory insurance usually applies

to PIP or liability. I dont know of any state that has mandatory collision coverage, but I could be wrong.

[GOPisEvil]

26. Liability insurance is mandatory, full coverage is not.

I work in subrogation (for property, not auto), but technically, the guy is in the right. The dog's owner is responsible for the actions of the dog. The dog caused damage to the guy's vehicle. Heartless, yes, but he's within his rights.

[kay1864]

28. The judge disagrees with you, so no, the guy's not in the right

See my post #14 above, and #24 below.

[Midlodemocrat]

47. Here, you can pay a 'bond' of sorts somewhere like $400 if

you don't carry insurance.

I think it's pretty stupid not to, but that's JMHO.

[Hobarticus]

46. Why?

If the dog had bitten him, then yes, they would pay, but he hit the dog.

[Rabrrrrrr]

55. You're really stuck on the "he hit the dog" train of thought.

It was a collision - a collision caused by one object (the dog) being where it wasn't supposed to be (on the road). The car did not hit the dog so much as the dog put the car in a position of not being to avoid hitting it.

If the dude had driven his car up on the yard in order to hit the dog, then yes, we can say the driver hit the dog.

In this case, we can only say that the dog and the car collided, and that it was the dog that was in violation.

The dog shouldn't have been there; its presence in the road was, ultimately, its owner's fault, just in the way that a captain is responsible for the actions of his men even if he isn't there.

Therefore, the owners should pay for the damage to the car. Even though this was accidental, not intentional (at least, according to the dog's owners it's accidental, but I have no reason at this time to doubt their story), the owners should still have the integrity to offer to pay for the damage, just as if they had accidentally let a bowling ball (or other object) loose down the street.

[Hobarticus]

56. LOL...you'd make a fine lawyer..."my client's car didn't hit the dog..."

"...so much as the dog forced my client to hit him."

That's absurd, but I gotta give you points for creativity.

[Rabrrrrrr]

59. That's not even close to what I said, but continue.

:eyes:

[Hobarticus]

64. "The car did not hit the dog..."?!?

Oh man, I'd love to see the judge's face when you pulled that one out of your hat, counsel.

:crazy:

[PassingFair]

58. What if it was a toddler that broke free?

Accidents happen. Sometimes it's nobody's fault.

[Rabrrrrrr]

61. OMG! What if it was a Prussian? Or a vacuum cleaner? Or a changed mind?

:eyes:

OMG!!!

What if the wood in your house didn't come from trees - but FROM TODDLERS?!?! Would you still live there? OMG!!!



OMG!!!!!!!

:eyes:


OMG!!! What if my thermodynamics professor, instead of giving us a final, told us to go find and KILL A TODDLER?!?!?!? I can't believe I went to that school, in which that might have happened!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eyes:

[PassingFair]

62. Would you still want to sue the parents? n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

63. Your logic is impeccable.

:eyes:

[Blue Diadem]

22. Hitting a 13# dog did all that damage?

Poor little dog..but what the heck are they doing to the cars that the bumper couldn't withstand that?

Can you imagine it he'd hit another car? If a tiny animal is going to break a bumper and send pieces of it through his radiator, I think I'll avoid driving a Honda Civic.

[FloridaJudy]

23. He would have had to be going awfully damn fast

For a small dog to do that much damage. I've accidentally hit armadillos that were about that size - and armored - and it didn't do more than scratch the paint. Something smells here, and it's not just the blood on the bumper.

[Blue Diadem]

25. I think so too.

Not sure if it's in the article the OP posted because it didn't show for me at the link, but I read the story elsewhere and the guy said the radiator problem wasn't pre-existing..making me wonder if it was.

I know I've hit extremely large raccoons before, probably at least 20lbs or more and I've never had anymore damage than as you said..scratched paint.

[Tyler Durden]

34. I did the math down thread: 150 mph.

[Blue Diadem]

43. Thanks Tyler,

I'm glad you joined in. It's nice having someone who knows the math back us up.

[Tyler Durden]

44. No cover charge. I was bored with PPAPs anyway.

Personally? If I hit someone's dog, I'd be falling all over myself helping the FAMILY get through it.

But then I like dogs better than 90% of the people I know!

[Blue Diadem]

53. umm..

*whisper* what's a PPAP? :blush: for my ignorance

Me too..I'd feel so awful if I ever hit someone's pet.

[huskerlaw]

24. The judge was correct

The legal theory is foreseeability. In other words, was it foreseeable to the owners of the dog that that particular dog would run out into the street? If the dog had never escaped before, then no, it was not foreseeable. If, however, the dog ran out into the street on a regular basis, then it was foreseeable and the owners would be liable.

I know it sounds harsh, but if the driver of the vehicle was obeying traffic laws and couldn't have avoided the dog, then where should the fault lie? With the lawful driver? No. With the dog? Can't. With the owners of a dog who routinely got out, but they didn't do anything to ensure the dog didn't continue to run into the street? Yup.

In this case, it doesn't appear there was a pattern of the dog escaping. Sometimes there is liability to be assigned, sometimes an accident is just an accident. This appears to be the latter.

[Burma Jones]

30. So just how fast was this guy driving in what I assume is a residential neighborhood?

If he's going fast enough to smash a bumper into his radiator with a 13 pound dog and if he's in a residential neighborhood, he should be strung up - figuratively speaking......

[Tyler Durden]

31. FUN with MATH!!!!

A miniature pinscher is less than 12" tall. Average Height of a bumper off the pavement in the lot of my company (25 cars in the front lot) 10.5 inches.

Dog was 13 pounds. Residential speed limit usually 25 mph=36.7 feet/second.

Dog side dimensions, 6x12 inches yields 72 sq. inches/ or 0.18 psi of possible exertion.

Impact must occur exactly in the center of the bumper to create maximum damage, AND possible fragments into the radiator.

Impact IF the dog jumped at exactly the right second to impact in the center of the bumper (necessary due to height of dog, and to give MAXIMUM impact assumption) 6.7 pounds exertion per square inch at 25 mph.

Force necessary to Shatter Fracture fascia style Honda bumper is approximately 50 psi impact. (test results: Auburn Hills lab, Plastech)

Two things are required to create the scenario that the driver describes:

1. his speed must be increased by a factor of about 6, that is, he would have to be traveling about 150 mph.

2. the dog must strike the bumper dead center, requiring a jump of exactly 1 foot within a .5 second window. Too high puts it through the grill, too low does not exert enough mass impact on the bumper.


The situation described by the driver is not possible.

[Rabrrrrrr]

32. Not if he slammed the brakes, bringing the front of the car down.

Still, it does seem - on first thought - like too much damage.

[Tyler Durden]

33. Then he sacrifices SPEED.

With that weight of animal and the small area, his speed has to be beyond that attainable by a Civic (150 mph).

I worked in Automotive plastics, at a company that made those POS fascia bumpers. They're shit, but they aren't Kleenex.

One other thing...if he had AC, then even if the dog did hit dead center, and he was moving at 150 mph, fragments would have hit the AC condenser first.

Those fascias are made to bend and crack. you can't hit them hard enough to shatter them even at a legal freeway speed.

[Hobarticus]

39. Not agreeing with the guy, but he's also figuring in

Time off from work, etc., not just the damage to his car.

[Tyler Durden]

41. Damage he claimed is not physically possible.

[Hobarticus]

45. Oh I agree. eom

[last_texas_dem]

40. I wonder how much he would've tried to get out of the family

if their child had run out into the street and he'd hit him/her?

[montanto]

54. Sheesh, this is silly.

Some dumbass kid scribed a bunch of X's into one side of my 2000 jetta a few years ago and it cost me $2000 to get it fixed, counting car rentals, deductible, etc, not to mention PITA bodyshop time. Car repair is expensive, and this was just a scratch.

Yeah, the story sounds like BS.

The dog still shouldn't be in the street though. A dog is a piece of property, not a person. If my neighbor's unattended car rolls out in the street as I drive by and I hit it, am I the cause of the accident? Its an accident, sure, but should I have to pay the price for carelessness / mechanical failure while I'm obeying the law??

[The Inquisitive]

57. This man should be awarded!

the level of douchebaggery required to go through with that is absolutely mind boggling!

I can see the award ceremony now, it is glorious!
http://weshasadouche.ytmnd.com/