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 ...
Now, if the driver doesn’t have insurance, why is he allowed to drive?
If he's driving an older car that's paid off then it is possible he only has the minimum liability insurance that's required by law. This won't pay for damage done to his vehicle. This isn't unusual.
More importantly, why should this guy just suck it up and eat $1,100 bucks worth of damage done to his vehicle and lost wages for something that wasn't his fault?
I feel bad these folks lost their dog but they should have been more responsible. They should pay up.
The dog should not have been on the road, the car should have. The dog owners are responsible.
Now if the dog were on a leash on the sidewalk and the guy ran it over, he would not have an argument.
Dogs do not belong in the road, and it’s the owners fault that it was and their dog damaged someone’s property because the dog owner’s carelessness made the street unsafe for motorists.
Dog lovers think that dogs can do no wrong.
In this case, the dog owner is responsible for keeping the dog off of thoroughfares used by motorists. The owner was incompetent and should pay for damage their neglect and carelessness caused.
Second, note that this report is from yankeeland.
I’m not for suing, but I would. The driver of the car is out maybe $500 for his deductible. Why should he have to pay for his deductible and possibly get his insurance premiums hiked because some dog owner can’t keep his dog in check?
My Lab would lick you to death and probably help the burglars tote our stuff to their vehicle....................
Have you ever worked in the auto repair industry? $1,100 ain't nothing. A damaged bumper, radiator, parts and labor --not to mention the two days of missed work and court fees could easily add up to $1,100. If you ask me, the guy's being generous.
Remember, this was back during the Chevy Van craze. He was totally PO'd.............
Is he suing, or is the insurance company suing in his name?
My elderly neighbor was hit by a car crossing the street in front of our apartment building. The man who hit him sent my neighbor a certified letter requesting payment for the damage to his automobile. The old man has been in the hospital since it happened.
So just how far over the speed limit was Mr. Ely driving, on a residential street? Remember, this was a 13 pound dog. And how closely was he paying attention to the road? He could just as easily have hit a child who darted into the road. Seems to me there's a reckless driving conviction waiting to happen here. And then a suit from the dog owners for the loss of their dog plus intentional infliction of emotional distress for suing them over the damage to his car!
What a loser. One can only hope he has reason to apply for a new job in the relatively near future. Employers pretty routinely Google the names of potential hires these days. This guy's employment prospects would be toast.
They make my stomach turn, also, but probably not for the same reason. My husband broke an axle and came close to flipping his truck to avoid a dog in traffic. He loves animals, but after that experience, if it's him (or causing an accident for others), then the dog gets hit.
The owner should be grateful that the driver didn't swerve and possibly injure himself to avoid the dog. People are more important than animals, and yes, I have a dog that I love, but it's my responsibility to keep her safe and not let her be the cause of injury or damage to others.
He probably only has liability insurance, not collision. It isn’t cost effective to have the collision with an older car. The pet owners are responsible for the damage done (through negligence), and should be forced to pay up.
Ditto. That's liberal land there. The guy's car was a POS that was already falling apart. The dog is tiny and would have fit right under a sound vehicle, w/o causing any damage at all.
They are not sacred and I am glad this guy is going to court over this, the owner of said dog should have paid up without a squawk since her dog caused the accident due to her carelessness.
We(FReepers)are always talking about taking responsibility for one's actions but some of us think that doesn't apply when it is a dog(or name of your favorite animal here)owner that needs to suck it up and own up to their obligations.
They're liberals that're taking after the South's 'lil Johnnie Edwards.
The child should not have been on the road, the car should have. The parents are responsible.
Now if the child were in their yard and the guy ran it over, he would not have an argument.
Children do not belong in the road, and it’s the parents fault that it was and their child damaged someone’s property because the parent's carelessness made the street unsafe for motorists.
Parents think that children can do no wrong.
In this case, the parent is responsible for keeping the child off of thoroughfares used by motorists. The parent was incompetent and should pay for damage their neglect and carelessness caused.
Accidents happen. Just as a dog can run out into the road, so can a child. It is tramatic for everyone involved, but guess what? It was an accident.
Not every tragic incident can be "blamed" on someone.
I know.
Owners should be responsible for their animals and the damage they cause.
The family shoud pay up ASAP.
Why?
The dog was the responsibility of the owner, the dog damaged another persons property. The owner of the dog is responsible for that damage.
There is nothing stomach turning about it.
One cannot automatically assume that he was speeding. 25 -30 mph is sufficient for major damages, plus these newer cars all have plastic fascias for bumpers instead of steel. While I lament the loss of the dog, it should have been under the owner’s complete control. Yes, I know animals are unpredictable and will do such things as this, but you have to consider that the driver of the vehicle was not responsible for the damages to his vehicle. Had this been an inanimate object rolling out of the garage and into the street, the home owner would have been just as liable for damages. The fact that it was a dog, and the dog was killed, injects a cloud of feelings of sympathy to obscure the logical reasoning of responsibility of the dog owner.......
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.