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 ...
The pet owner in this case is not legally responsible for the damages. There is no strict liability in this case and no negligence is evident. The dog is also the same size as a cat.
The only relevant statutory law that was broken here is the failure of the driver to maintain control of his vehicle and to maintain his vehicle in a safe condition. The engineering standards for all vehicles offered for sale in the US provides for sufficient mechanical integrity, that collision with a friggin' miniature pincher would have no more consequence to the vehicle than acquiring minor blood spatter. This vehicle was damn near totaled.
The driver in this case is a loser and he was probably born that way.
Wow.....not even a close facsimile of the scenario!
Try again.
Sickening.
Generally, I would agree, but there are problems in this instance.
First of all, the guy had to be going pretty fast through a residential area not to see the dog coming, and to have a 13 pound dog do this much damage. (Either that, or his car was falling apart anyway and it didn't take much to cause the damage.) Keep in mind that a 13 pound dog is not that tall, so he had to hit the dog hard enough to force it up high enough and have it hit the grill hard enough to do this damage.
Second, why the heck doesn't this guy go to his insurance and let them go after the homeowner's insurance. Why is he personally suing these people?
I think this guy is a weasel, and I hope he loses.
25 or 50 years ago, cars had metal in them and wouldn’t have sustained so much damage and hence been so costly to repair.
All you folks going on and on about how this was an “accident” are mistaken. If the dog isn’t in the road, the “accident” doesn’t even happen—aren’t there leash laws in this county?
As for the idiotic countersuit—how is the dog still worth the price it was paid for when it was a brand spankin’ new puppy? Dogs don’t depreciate? They don’t want their “grief” prolonged? It’s a dog, cupcake, not a human being. Go to the pound and get another one for 40 bucks.
And why do people always have to introduce irrelevant tangential hypotheticals into these discussions? We’re not talking about a child wandering into the street or Judge Judy or anything else. Try to stick to the topic.
Pretty easy to deduce that either he was speeding or his car was already falling apart. A 13 pound dog is not tall enough to hit the grill of a car unless it is hit hard and fast enough to force it up into the air so that it hits the car again hard enough to force parts of the grill into the radiator.
And it is likely he wasn't cited because a cop didn't see the accident. I didn't see anything in the article to even indicate a police report was filed. If not, then of course he wouldn't be cited.
It is quite interesting that this guy isn't working through his insurance company who would then go after the homeowner's insurance. Wonder if he even has insurance.
This guy is a weasel, and I hope he loses his lawsuit.
“Say you decline to buy homeowners insurance which covers against theft, and someone steals/destroys your $5000 plasma TV. You’re saying that if you insist that party repay you the $5000, you’re a net winner because you get the $5000 and you got to spend the money you would have spend on homeowners insurance premiums? Does this really make sense?”
_______________________________________________________________
There are so many things wrong with that statement that it does not qualify as an analogy.
In the real world, you will never recover the value of the TV from a perp -get real.
Yes, it makes sense. The guy declines coverage which he should pay for and still have coverage for losses (in the form of damages).
When you can’t argue on principle, make up facts. Good strategy.
If someone else is responsible for the damages, why should he have to pay for them or for insurance to cover them? Either way it’s money out of his pocket (either in the form of insurance premiums if he chooses to buy insurance, or repairs if he does not) for something for which someone else is responsible.
So explain to me how a 13 poung dog hits the grill of a car. If you can’t, then YOU are making up facts, because a 13 pound dog isn’t that tall.
Dog doesn't need to be tall.
Here's a 1997 Honda Civic:
He strikes the dog on the air dam under the license plate. The air dam disintegrates sending shards of sharp plastic upwards into the radiator located behind and slightly above it. The sharp plastic pierce the radiator with ease rendering the car inoperable until the radiator is repaired.
Why automatically assume this is a “residential” street with a 25 or 30 mph speed limit? I live on a state highway with 55mph speed limit & the pavement is throwing distance from the house. Many people in the Midwest live in rural areas where highway speeds are perfectly legal.
I didn’t assume any particular speed limit. Clearly it was a street with a house close enough that a dog could dart out of the house and get hit almost immediately. I have serious doubts as to whether hitting a 13 pound dog even at 55 mph could send pieces of bumper flying into a metal radiator hard enough to do damage that requires replacement of the radiator. People hit groundhogs and raccoons at 55 mph all the time, and it usually causes little or no damage to the car — certainly doesn’t disintegrate the bumper and send pieces of it flying through the metal of the radiator.
And any time one is driving on a street to which homes have direct access, one had better be darn sure to keep an eye on the sides of the road and be able to stop in time to avoid hitting a child who might dart out. “But I wasn’t exceeding the speed limit” won’t fix it if you hit a child.
Hitting an animal is covered under comprehensive, not collision.
If a 85 ford is hit from behind by an 08 Lincoln...the 85 ford doesn’t have comp and collision, should they have to pay for their own repairs or should the 08 lincoln’s liability insurance cover the damages?
What’s your point?
It’s not the responsibility of the injured party to pay for their own damages. Comprehensive and Collision will pay for your own vehicle under these conditions but will subrogate against the other party to recoup the losses...including your deductible.
If you don’t carry comp and collision, you have to go through the insurance of the other party for your damages. If the other party has insurance that will cover their liability, they should turn the suit over to their insurance and let them handle it.
If the other party doesn’t have insurance to cover it, it becomes a civil suit between two individuals.
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.