Posted on 05/07/2008 6:37:34 AM PDT by Dan Nunn
“...in which case his insurance status is irrelevant.”
______________________________________________________________
But morally it is.
How can he assume the risk for C/C and pocket the savings and when C/C is needed he wants to sue for the damage. It was a discretionary decision that saved him money and he now wants to in effect sue homeowner policy holders to make him whole when he tacitly agreed to self-insure by declining the C/C. The moral position would be to accrue the savings from declining the C/C coverage and bet that you will come out ahead. That’s exactly what insurance companies do.
You keep harping on this insurance issue, but if the dog owner is responsible for the damage, it does not matter whether he chose to buy it.
I called the driver’s lawsuit frivolous because I don’t think it has legal merit.
Ugh. People are so disgusting and heartless these days, as you can see with this thread. Sure, the dog owner is probably responsible. But would we have had a lawsuit 25 or 50 years ago? There is virtually no human decency anymore.
The last thing I’d do after I were to hit and kill a pet owner’s dog is prolong the grief. The lady on Judge Judy is reprehensible and beyond reproach. I could care less about the legal aspect. Like I said, there probably is solid legal standing for the guy who is suing. But have some sense of civility. I refuse to hypothesize and extrapolate this to a situation that isn’t at hand - this particular situation is disgusting, and I stand by that. All you “by the books” hard-liners can shove it.
What part of cheap skating don’t you get?
He saved all the C/C costs, spent it how ever he wanted and expects other policy holders to pay for his greed.
You missed the other option.
Escrow the savings from declining the C/C coverage and pay for the damage himself. By declining coverage you tacitly agree to self insure.
ML/NJ
Why should he have to buy insurance to protect against damage for which other people are responsible? Why shouldn't they (or their insurance company) pay for it?
Some of us can relate to the driver. It is possible that his "POS" car was his only form of transportation. It is also possible that without a running car, he doesn't get to go to work. Finally, to some people, $1,100 is serious cash that they worked hard for and can't easily part with.
Furthermore, whose to say he didn't try and reach a settlement privately, only to be told to go screw himself?
Decency? What is decent about expecting this guy to eat $1,100 of his hard-earned money for something that most will freely admit was not his fault?
Oh, I get it. It's all about feeeeelings because poor Fester got killed because his owners failed to control him. And because they feeeeel bad about losing their dog through their own negligence, we should just let them off the hook for the damage their negligence caused?
“Why should he have to buy insurance to protect against damage for which other people are responsible? Why shouldn’t they (or their insurance company) pay for it?”
______________________________________________________________
Because coverage for this exact circumstance was available to him and through avarice he declined. How can he benefit from a decision to spend his money on whatever and then be made whole from others funds. He is a net winner because the damage to his car and his lost wages are covered and he got to spend his C/C cost on whatever he wanted to. He is being paid twice for the same incident.
I agree. The law is on the car owner’s side. If he could afford it, it would be nice to let it go...but if he can’t, what else could he do?
Wishing it didn't have merit doesn't change the fact that this is a legitimate lawsuit.
Clearly, too many pet owners on this thread don't want to be reminded that they are legally and financially responsible for the damage their pets cause. Guess it hits too close to home for some.
I’ve flogged this dog for too long.
I’ve got to go and get a life for this afternoon.
Furthermore, whose to say he didn't try and reach a settlement privately, only to be told to go screw himself?
One could also say that the family tried to settle, but this POS demanded time-from-work to prepare a case and other costs that the grief stricken family found ridiculous.
Because logically these two situations are identical. In both cases one party declined to buy insurance, and in both cases another party caused damage that could have been covered by that insurance. It's pretty clear he doesn't come out ahead even if he's repayed in the example above, and this case is no different.
If people can not or will not control their domestic animals, the domestic animal needs to be euthanized and the owner fined.
I doubt that the $1100 was enough to be over his deductible.
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? If all that was involved were simply logic and cold reason, yes. But introducing an emotional, and therefore illogical, side to the conflict would produce a different set of circumstances entirely. If the dog had been a child, and had died as a result of the unfortunate accident, I seriously doubt that the man would pursue a court action against the child's parents for damages to his car, nor would an attorney be likely to take the case.........
Not being familiar with “open range laws” I cannot make a serious comment. What all is encompassed by them? ............
A dog is not a child.
A dog's owners are responsible for the dog's actions. Suppose it were a loveable pet rhino and it trashed your car.
It's an ANIMAL. Not a child.
Fortunately people who own rhinos - usually zoos, do a better job of keeping them off the streets than this ding-dong could a 13 pound mutt.
The dog was allowed to wander someplace it should not have been due to the owner's carelessness and it caused damage to someone's property. The owner is responsible.
IMO, that premise is faulty. Dogs are considered property, not wild animals. The owner of a dog is responsible for the actions of that dog. That’s the bottom line of the legal issue. The owner was negligent, and that negligence caused, or rather, allowed, the dog to get out and into the street.
The driver is not at fault for the dog getting out of the owner’s property and in the path of his vehicle. I think he will prevail, though maybe not for the full amount, and her counter suit will fail.
I say he might not win the full amount, because it’s not clear that he HAD to take off work to get estimates and repairs. Maybe he did, but that’s for the judge to decide.
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.