Topic: Lol, which side would you side with?

[jzmtl]

Driver of car that struck and killed dog sues dog owners
Published: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 | 6:59 AM ET
Canadian Press: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

DULUTH, Minn. - The driver of a car that struck and killed a dog in Minnesota is suing the dog's owners for damage done to his vehicle.

Jeffery Ely was driving near Duluth, Minnesota, on January 4th when Fester, a miniature pinscher, ran into the road.

Ely's 1997 Honda Civic struck Fester, killing the 5.8-kilogram dog instantly.

Now Ely is suing Fester's owners 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.

Ely tells Duluth News Tribune he feels sorry for the family's loss but feels they must be responsible for their pets' actions. He's a dog owner himself.

Fester's owners have countersued Ely, for $2,400.

People today...

[initial_D]

Only in the USofA.

[dorin]

I can see the driver's point in this one.

If someone lets their dog roam loose and it bites someone isn't the owner generally held liable?  It seems to me that the same principle applies here.

[quadzilla]

I would actually side with the driver. I had this happen to a friend and she had thousands of dollars of damage done to her car after hitting two dogs on a hwy. She went back asking the owners to pay up. People should be held responsible for their animals and if they can't control them, they should then pay up. I feel only for the dog as the owners were too STUPID to keep them safe.

I've been nearly taken out or clotheslined while riding my bike from stupid dog owners too many times now.

One day while riding I happened to look back to see a beautiful German Sheppard run onto the road and get hit by a car. The owner was too busy running 100 meters ahead talking to his friend with no idea where his dog was. I rode up asking if he knew where his dog was and then told him its under that car, assclown. I really felt like driving my bike up his ass to show him how much it hurts.

[random006]

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

Driver, no question.

[ArticSteve]

If Minn is anything like Ontario, which I'm sure it is, the law is 100% on the side of the driver/vehicle.  It's a bad scene all around, but when the dog is on the roadway it is deemed "at large" and that's a by-law infraction anywhere and the onus is not on the driver to avoid the dog.

He'll get his repair costs.  In Ontario he would not get compensated for his "time" tending to repair matters.

[Wolverine]

I love pets, but i would side with the driver. Lets say you have a car in the driveway, the parking brake fails and your car rolls to the middle of the street and hits a passing car, isn't it your fault?

[Snowman]

I would actually side with the driver. I had this happen to a friend and she had thousands of dollars of damage done to her car after hitting two dogs on a hwy. She went back asking the owners to pay up. People should be held responsible for their animals and if they can't control them, they should then pay up. I feel only for the dog as the owners were too STUPID to keep them safe.

I've been nearly taken out or clotheslined while riding my bike from stupid dog owners too many times now.

One day while riding I happened to look back to see a beautiful German Sheppard run onto the road and get hit by a car. The owner was too busy running 100 meters ahead talking to his friend with no idea where his dog was. I rode up asking if he knew where his dog was and then told him its under that car, assclown. I really felt like driving my bike up his ass to show him how much it hurts.

  Some people should not own pets….or have children.

[safristi]

  wot did the neighbours say ................oh Wolvies @ it again.................

[tenpenny]

I would suggest the car owner should stfu, and take his lumps; the dog owner should grieve and be more attentive with their next pet.

What if it was a kid, would the driver sue the parents of the kid?  There is such a concept as compassion and common sense.  

Some people have absolutely zero empathy.  

[Snowman]

I would suggest the car owner should stfu, and take his lumps; the dog owner should grieve and be more attentive with their next pet.

What if it was a kid, would the driver sue the parents of the kid?  There is such a concept as compassion and common sense.  

Some people have absolutely zero empathy.  

Depends on the age of the kid

[quadzilla]

What if it was a kid, would the driver sue the parents of the kid?  There is such a concept as compassion and common sense.   

I guess the dog owner didn't have any common sense?

Accidents are caused.

[Railton]

This is a no brainer.
Say, did the other question ever get answered by the resident legal-beagle (Jordan Charness) on riding a bicycle across a cross-walk as opposed to walking the bicycle across and if the child/adult was hit whether the driver was at fault?
I was waiting for that high-priced help to earn their wage on that one.
Railton

[dr_spock]

Pets are considered property and children are not.   If your property (like your car) damaged someone else's property then there is liability. 

[jzmtl]

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.

[quadzilla]

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.

What does blackbook and cost of damages have to do with each other? 

[Cord]

Pets are considered property and children are not.   If your property (like your car) damaged someone else's property then there is liability. 

Exactly. I'm a dog owner but arguments that begin "what if it was a child ..." miss the point entirely. A dog is not a child. What if the dog had been a Great Dane ...?

Dog owners are 100% responsible for their pets. Dogs rely on this responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others.

[tenpenny]

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?)

[jzmtl]

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.

What does blackbook and cost of damages have to do with each other? 

Because how could a miniature pinscher do almost as much damage as the car is worth? Let's give him $100 for time off work and court fee, that's still a grand of damage, from a dog that's size of a cat.

[quadzilla]

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.

What does blackbook and cost of damages have to do with each other? 

Because how could a miniature pinscher do almost as much damage as the car is worth? Let's give him $100 for time off work and court fee, that's still a grand of damage, from a dog that's size of a cat.

I'm no expert here but my first guess would be that they have to replace some parts on the car. The sum of the parts are worth more than the value of the car. This is the case for most cars that get old actually.

Auto repair is costly.