Posted on 05/07/2008 6:37:34 AM PDT by Dan Nunn
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
I have comprehensive and collision insurance with the highest deductibles the insurance company will allow. $5000 I think. I save quite a bit on premiums this way.
In any event comprehensive and collision are never required, only liability.
This is an open and shut case, the dog owner is liable. Both for damages and for the death of her dog.
If she doesn't have to pay for the damages, the driver of the car is being forced to subsidize her irresponsible behavior.
I think there is. The dog in question offers no more of an obstacle than a gallon of milk sitting on the road. It's a puny dog and at 13 lbs., this one was probably fat. The damage is entirely consistent with rusted out sheet metal supporting both the radiator and the plastic bumper fascia. That plastic is flexible and hitting an animal twice the size wouldn't crack it. I'd bet most of the floor was rusted out, the brakes were n.g. and the suspension attachment points were rusted to the point where they'd tear free if a small pothole was hit.
Why?
This has happened 5 times in the past 5 years and two of these dogs disappeared? and three have been run over on the highway fronting my property. I refuse to restrain another persons animal while waiting for them to return and call it back to them. These irresponsible owners need charged with something but from the leanings of this thread I am more likely to be. Where do I stand?
I backed right through the trash cans the other morning.......
ML/NJ
He wasn't required to carry full coverage. This doesn't mean he should be SOL because of someone else's irresponsible, careless behavior.
Even if he had c/c insurance, why should he pay the deductible and suffer higher rates because of someone else's irresponsible, careless behavior?
And for everyone calling this an "accident" well, there wouldn't have been an "accident" if it wasn't for the dog owners' irresponsible, careless behavior.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. The driver of the car did nothing wrong. People need to take responsibility for their decisions --and this includes the decision to own a pet. Amazing that this concept seems so unreasonable here on FR.
Read some of these posts. We have people trying to blame the driver for speeding (he wasn't cited) and for driving an older vehicle. Ridiculous! The only thing this guy did wrong was to happen to be at the wrong place when irresponsible, careless dog owners let their animals run freely in the streets and then he had the nerve to expect some measure of compensation for the financial loss he has had to endure courtesy of these irresponsible, careless people.
You should sue yerself and post a thread so we can analyze the event for the responsibilities and liabilities for all the players involved.
“I have comprehensive and collision insurance with the highest deductibles the insurance company will allow. $5000 I think. I save quite a bit on premiums this way.”
______________________________________________________________
Yes, you do save quite a bit on premiums that way. Why? Because you assume the risk for the first $5000. I applaud you for being in the tax bracket that the libs want to soak. A $5000 deductible indicates that you own a fine piece of automotive engineering and that you have the financial wherewithal to absorb the $5K ding.
Insurance, used properly, covers a loss that you can not afford; not what you don’t want to lose.
Many coverages that we purchase are not “required”, but not availing oneself of them leaves you at risk. If one has casual sex, without “coverage”, and contracts an STD; can the other person be sued for negligence to recover cost for treatment, loss of wages, damage to reputation, etc?
There was a deliberate decision made to decline Coll/Comp coverage. The driver has to cowboy up and live with that.
Because I believe this situation was an accident in which both sides suffered losses for which neither is liable. I believe the driver’s lawsuit is frivolous, and because I have that opinion, I want the countersuit of the dog owners to prevail to punish the driver for taking them to court. If the driver could prove that the dog owners routinely let this dog run free in the neighborhood, he would have a stronger case against them for negligence or liability. As it is, a dog bolting out of a house and getting hit by a car before its owner can catch him is no different than this driver hitting some wild animal that ran out in front of him. It was an accident.
The dog was fine ... but he popped a $2500 dent into the door of the brand-new Saab (which the owner had only had for a couple of days).
Our insurance paid the tab ... which was only right, as the damage was our dog's (and our) fault.
If the dog in this case really did run into the street and cause the accident, I think the owners really should pay up.
I take the responsibility to have the necessary means to defend myself from both unleashed dogs and their irate owners. Every fool who walks their dog off a leash will tell you that they won't bite you. I usually reply that dead dogs don't bite.
Good for the car owner. If he was not at fault, he shouldn’t bear the expense. There are some pet owners who are implicit socialists who expect the rest of society to subsidize the damage their pet causes.
well if the cow is in a state with open range laws,the car owner has to pay for the cow.i kmow.
” This doesn’t mean he should be SOL because of someone else’s irresponsible, careless behavior.
Even if he had c/c insurance, why should he pay the deductible and suffer higher rates because of someone else’s irresponsible, careless behavior?
_______________________________________________________________
He doesn’t have to lose the deductible. The insurance lawyers will reclaim all monies and the driver’s deductible will not come into play. If the dog owner didn’t have insurance then he is out of luck.
In regards to careless behavior, the driver made a conscious decision to decline C/C coverage and sues the dog owner and wins, which the homeowners policy will cover. Are we, as homeowners, supposed to subsidize the drivers decision not to buy C/C? Who is making out on the deal? If he had self-insured and put the saved premiums in an account for such an event, he could have probably paid the $1100.
What the little sniveler wants to do is save the C/C portion of the premium and spend it at his leisure but claim a loss that others who purchased coverage has to make up for.
So you want a suit that is completely without legal merit to succeed, costing the completely innocent car owner another $2500, because you don’t like the fact that he filed a suit that does have legal merit?
Many people think that doing something “accidentally” means it didn’t happen, nobody got hurt, nobody should be morally or legally responsible. That’s not how life is.
And of course the owners could have done many things to control their dog, had they chosen.
Have you checked your county animal control ordinances? A neighbor told me recently that she had taken care of a stray dog that turned up in her yard, and after a couple of weeks, a friend of hers adopted. Well, it turns out it was microchipped, and when she took it to the vet, they turned in the information to the microchipping company. The dog’s owners got her information through the vet, and had her arrested for stealing their dog!
Not likely. And yet another reason why responsible drivers have insurance.
What if a three year old toddler ran out the door and onto the road and was killed by a car. Would your logic be the same?
This was an unfortunate accident. Why does it have to be someone's 'fault'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.