Topic: Lol, which side would you side with?

[Cord]

If we're judging the character of the people involved then what about the character of the dog owners? I would think that they should've offered to pay for the damages that they were responsible for. That display of character would've kept this whole thing from being debated here.

[dr_spock]

one thing I do think stupid is the $1100 damage. I looked up blackbook value of a 97 civic, it's only a bit more than that.

It could be the guy's favorite beloved car.  It may not be just a "car" to him.  There could be some emotional attachment.  In another thread about car door dings, seems like most of us here would physically hurt someone who damaged our beloved rides.

[initial_D]

Filed a claim in Judge Judy's Court or a full-out lawsuit?  $1100 can't even pay for a lawyer to show up at court.

[Brig]

Assuming the facts were reported accurately and with no omissions, then:

Driver, no question.

I tend to agree.  When you hit something, as a driver, you're responsible.  That doesn't mean you need to be charged (or sued) for anything, but you are fundamentally responsible for not stopping your car when you should have. 

We've all read stories about pedestrians who dart out into the street and get hit; ultimately, the driver isn't charged under the law (unless there's drinking involved), but he is still responsible for hitting the person.  Ask any insurer.

[dr_spock]

Filed a claim in Judge Judy's Court or a full-out lawsuit?  $1100 can't even pay for a lawyer to show up at court.

For that amount, one would use small claims court.  You don't have to bring a lawyer to small claims court. 

[Cord]

Assuming the facts were reported accurately and with no omissions, then:

Driver, no question.

I tend to agree.  When you hit something, as a driver, you're responsible.  That doesn't mean you need to be charged (or sued) for anything, but you are fundamentally responsible for not stopping your car when you should have. 

We've all read stories about pedestrians who dart out into the street and get hit; ultimately, the driver isn't charged under the law (unless there's drinking involved), but he is still responsible for hitting the person.  Ask any insurer.

What exactly do you mean the driver is responsible for hitting something? And not stopping your car when you should have, what does that mean? So if a driver is operating his vehicle legally (driving where he should be, going legal speeds, etc.) and someone or something enters the roadway illegally (e.g. a jaywalking person or dog off leash) the driver is expected to stop his car immediately (never mind the laws of physics) or he/she is responsible? I'll defer to any expert insurer's opinion, but I'm pretty sure that once an insurance company pays the driver to cover his damages, that they would then attempt to recover damages from the person found to be legally responsible.

There are obviously lots of what ifs and omissions of detail in the reported story that prevent any firm conclusion about justice in this situation. It is interesting that where some people view this a "searching for blame" issue, others (like me) see it as an "avoiding responsibility" issue.

[Brig]

What exactly do you mean the driver is responsible for hitting something? And not stopping your car when you should have, what does that mean? So if a driver is operating his vehicle legally (driving where he should be, going legal speeds, etc.) and someone or something enters the roadway illegally (e.g. a jaywalking person or dog off leash) the driver is expected to stop his car immediately (never mind the laws of physics) or he/she is responsible? I'll defer to any expert insurer's opinion, but I'm pretty sure that once an insurance company pays the driver to cover his damages, that they would then attempt to recover damages from the person found to be legally responsible.

There are obviously lots of what ifs and omissions of detail in the reported story that prevent any firm conclusion about justice in this situation. It is interesting that where some people view this a "searching for blame" issue, others (like me) see it as an "avoiding responsibility" issue.

Stop yelling at me.   

Two incidents come to mind, and both happened to coworkers, not me, so I could be wrong.

1.  Coworker's husband is driving on a country-ish road on his way to work in early morning.  A deers chooses that precise moment to run across the road, and hits this man's car.  He didn't hit it; it hit him, damaging the front quarter panel.  Coworker told me that the insurer wanted to know, in clear terms, who hit what, and how.  Apparently, the coverage (and increase in premiums) would have been different had the driver done the hitting.

2.  Coworker driving in heavy traffic.  Car ahead comes to a dead stop; he can't stop in time and hits it, but at low speed.  Insurer tells him the onus was on him to maneuver his own car properly, regardless of the sudden stop ahead of him.  I tend to agree.

Again, I could be wrong.  I will certainly defer to the experts as well.

[Cord]

I'll try to keep my voice down. 

1.  Coworker's husband is driving on a country-ish road on his way to work in early morning.  A deers chooses that precise moment to run across the road, and hits this man's car.  He didn't hit it; it hit him, damaging the front quarter panel.  Coworker told me that the insurer wanted to know, in clear terms, who hit what, and how.  Apparently, the coverage (and increase in premiums) would have been different had the driver done the hitting.

Sounds patently ridiculous. The difference could be milliseconds. If it could be proven that the driver saw a deer standing in the road ahead and hit it rather than stopping then yes, the driver would be an idiot and should be at fault. However if a deer bounds out from the ditch at just the time the car is passing there is no way that a driver could avoid hitting it. Perhaps this was the opinion of the insurance company's receptionist?

2.  Coworker driving in heavy traffic.  Car ahead comes to a dead stop; he can't stop in time and hits it, but at low speed.  Insurer tells him the onus was on him to maneuver his own car properly, regardless of the sudden stop ahead of him.  I tend to agree.

Completely different situation. That driver obviously was following to closely to the vehicle ahead and should be held responsible. Hitting the car in the lane ahead of you is a far cry from running into a person or animal that runs into the roadway.

[safristi]

..In the preamble to the Turkish F1 they showed some of the "junior" races in one a dog runs out on the track and then runs off into the crowd...then a second hound runs onto the course as a race car comes by at 200kph plus...KAPOW....racer was fuming...but unhurt...dog was "toast".....place that in the arena of "sides"........... Turks must hate HOT-DOGS.....

[Snowman]

What if it was a moose?  Who do you sue, the DNR? The Queen? Why not accept it and get on with life, instead of always looking for someone to blame. 

To me, while I know this guy is within his legal rights, I think it reflects poorly on his character.  I'm not claiming the dog owner is innocent, I'm just suggesting that if people were a little more reasonable, the world would be a better place. 

(There actually was a case in Italy where a driver sued the parents of a deceased bicyclist for damages done to his car when he hit the guy.  Furthermore, I thought all of us self righteous types were of the opinion that parents are responsible for their children, so what's the diff?)

I don’t recall seeing any dog warning signs on any Ontario highways….besides moose are wild animals not domesticated with an owner who is responsible under the law in Ontario.