Posted on 05/07/2008 6:37:34 AM PDT by Dan Nunn
You thought wrong, didn’t you?
What you are seeing is the responses from a bunch of dog owning, emotional women who can’t bear to think that anyone would be so cold as to sue them for damages when they have just lost the best friend they ever had.
Doesn’t take much, body work is insanely expensive, I have no problem believing hitting at 13 lbs obstruction can cause $1000 of damage.
He was either going really fast, or his car was falling apart (or both).
Excellent point.
No its not a tragic accident, its irresponsibility of a dog owner.
You see unlike a CHILD.. which is not OWNED... it is not a Posession.. a DOG IS.
Your attempts at equating humans to pets is admirable though.. You should go work for PETA.
The owners of this dog need to suck it up and man up. If you aren’t going to take the responsibility of being a dog owner, don’t own a dog.
Excellent point.
It's not a question of "blame" but of legal liability for damages. This will be decided by a court, or negotiated by the parties before trial.
The article says the dog owners are countersuing for their time and costs, as well as the cost of the dog AND a replacement (which seems far beyond indemnity - he owes them two dogs?). Maybe the driver was speeding. Maybe the claimed damage to his car didn't happen. We don't know these facts, but a court, or attorneys negotiating a settlement, will know.
I'm going to agree with that. Trash up the bumper and a quarter panel and you're looking at replacement parts, new paint, and such. Even on a '97 Mitsubishi Galant (my first car) back in 2004, that was about $1,500 worth of damage.
Add in court fees and lost time, and the quoted figure of $1,100 is very generous. As for the dog's owners, they are liable for damage caused by their property. Any FReeper who suggests otherwise, well...I can't say much about them.
That's right. This dog was half the size of a 'coon and posed as much risk as running over a gallon of milk sitting in the road. Had this been a little kid, the guy would have no one to sue.
Of course not. And apples and oranges don't look or taste the same.
Sounds like the dog's owners are trying to benefit from the accident by collecting more than the actual loss (one dog and time missed from work).
If this guy ever hits a raccoon or possum and his car is damaged, who is he going to sue?
If the impact with the squishy 13 pound dog sent pieces of the plastic bumper flying into the metal radiator at a speed sufficient to damage the radiator badly enough that it had to be replaced, the car was going way, way, way too fast for a residential street. It’s sad that the dog died, but it could just as easily have been a child, and that would have been a lot sadder. Parents should keep their children under control too, but lapses are inevitable, and that’s why we have low speed limits for residential streets.
“That is an EXCELLENT question, sir.”
It is actually a STUPID question. (Read the many replies to the post if you need it explained.)
So if a 2008 Escalade hits my 1995 Toyota Celica, the driver of the Escalade should not be held accountable? Am I SOL because I drive a POS?
Just as no parent can have 100% of their child likewise a pet owner cannot have 100% of their pet.
The thing on this thread that makes me shake my head is this mythical belief that animals are simply possessions with no will of their own.
The dog stupidly dashed out of the house.
The dog dashed into the street.
The dog was hit by a car.
In no way, shape or form was there a chance for the owner to stop the above from happening. The owner would have preferred that the dog did none of the above, but it isn't a wrench, it's a dog. The child analogy was to demonstrate how ridiculous it sounds when people start equating animals with tires or rocks. Inanimate objects have no will of their own thus easily fall into the negligence argument. Animals have a will of their own and it's much harder to make that claim without a pattern of behavior.
And a 13 lb dog is not the same as a 13 lb rock, by the way. A car hitting a 13 lb rock will have much more damage done to it than a car hitting a 13 lb pillow. A 13 lb dog falls between the rock and pillow.
If he had significant damage to his car, he was likely speeding. And at that point I have to say I'm glad it was a dog and not a child that he hit.
Who knows how much damage to his car a 40 lb rock, er, I mean child would have caused.
He wasn't cited for speeding or careless driving and his previously running car was rendered inoperable after the bumper damaged the radiator.
Lots of assumptions and emotion on this thread.
A lot of radiators are plastic nowadays. I dunno about this one in particular........
His POS clunker would probably disintegrate and much of his worthlessness would get shaved off as he skidded down the road. He'd then sue the MN DOT for not posting 'coon crossing signs.
Don’t have a problem with a court hearing this. Many people now, though, don’t understand the term “accident” though and feel that there must be liability for every instance of loss. That isn’t the case.
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.