Comments: 19 Score: [-] 501 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 5 months ago by 2manyusernames:
The family should pay for the damages and pay for his legal fees for fighting their frivolous lawsuit.
The accident was the dog's fault. The dog is owned by the family, therefor they are liable for damages caused by the dog.
The man had expenses and only asking for $1100 is proof that he is only looking to break even, not trying to score some free cash.
Doesn't seem to me that there should be any question whatsoever - IF the dog was at fault.
It really is an open and shut case. Emotions shouldn't come into play. The family's love for the dog doesn't mean they are not liable for damages caused by the dog whether those damages are damage to a car or if the dog bit someone.
Score: [-] 329 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by DoggySpew:
I would sue the insurance company for not covering the damage.
Even so, I think in the end, both will be sentenced for what they claim, so the dog family will get the win.
Score: [-] 94 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by DoggySpew:
« 2manyusernames : The family should pay for the damages and pay for his legal fees for fighting their frivolous lawsuit.
The accident was the dog's fault. The dog is owned by the family, therefor they are liable for damages caused by the dog.
The man had expenses and only asking for $1100 is proof that he is only looking to break even, not trying to score some free cash.
Doesn't seem to me that there should be any question whatsoever - IF the dog was at fault.
It really is an open and shut case. Emotions shouldn't come into play. The family's love for the dog doesn't mean they are not liable for damages caused by the dog whether those damages are damage to a car or if the dog bit someone. Is the dog to blame ? Maybe in the US, but here in the Netherlands there is also something called "Watch where you drive".
This is to protect weaker parties in traffic. If a child suddenly walks down the street without looking and gets hit by a car, the car will be held responsible for the accident. Replace kid with dog, I see something similar (Sure, it is not the same, but similar).
Score: [-] 193 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« DoggySpew : I would sue the insurance company for not covering the damage.
Even so, I think in the end, both will be sentenced for what they claim, so the dog family will get the win. Yes, I would like to know why the insurance company didn't cover it. Perhaps he has a deductible? Perhaps the policy explicitly does not cover damage from animal collisions
But the man did nothing wrong. How do you justify him paying for the dog's actions?
Even if a 7 year old child runs into traffic and dies the driver is not liable for any damages or so mcuh as a traffic ticket assuming he is not at fault in any way.
Score: [-] 184 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« DoggySpew : Is the dog to blame ? Maybe in the US, but here in the Netherlands there is also something called "Watch where you drive".
This is to protect weaker parties in traffic. If a child suddenly walks down the street without looking and gets hit by a car, the car will be held responsible for the accident. Replace kid with dog, I see something similar (Sure, it is not the same, but similar). Of course the dog is at fault. You may be required to "watch where you drive" but you can not predict the future. Assuming the man was obeying traffic laws and was alert there is nothing he could have done to prevent the accident. The dog ran into the street, into the path of his vehicle. It is often times impossible to prevent the accident.
I have collided with a deer twice since living here in Florida. They are a lot larger than a dog, yet you still have no time to react. Hitting an animal - even birds while driving happens and most times it is unavoidable no matter how much you are looking at where you are driving
A child walking down the street without look shouldn't be hit if someone is paying attention. A child who darts into the path of an oncoming vehicle may very well be hit and no, it is not the driver's fault since there was no way to prevent the accident.
Now personally, I wouldn't have sued. I would have ate the $1100 but perhaps he is not capable of taking that sort of loss.
Score: [-] 203 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by gammerus:
the cost of buying a dog to replace Fester.
So he is replaceable?
Score: [-] 162 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by TraumaMamma:
« gammerus : So he is replaceable? They already replaced him. It was in the video!
Score: [-] 152 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by cLscoTT645:
I would love to add a comment but, having been late to this post, 2many has once again said EVERY thing I wanted to say.
So:
Good job 2many. :)
Score: [-] 105 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by Nicky666:
« 2manyusernames: A child who darts into the path of an oncoming vehicle may very well be hit and no, it is not the driver's fault since there was no way to prevent the accident.
What Doggyspew was aiming at is a Dutch law that prevents the "weaker party". As far as I know, if you're a biker with a death wish, you can act like a lunatic. But if something happens, the one in the car is to blame. Doesn't matter if it was or wasn't avoidable.
I'm not sure what the law says about kids or dogs, whatever it says, it's a crazy law.
And I agree, the dog owner's are to blame.
Score: [-] 114 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by coldbladed:
One thing they taught us in driver's-ed is that animals in the road are a low priority. People who swerve to miss small animals or slam on the breaks can cause far more damage than someone who makes the decision not to.
If a dog jumps out in front of me I will want to swerve out of the way, but if it means swerving into a child or another vehicle with a person in it. No, I'm sorry doggy but you are going to doggy-heaven, enjoy the milk-bones.
Score: [-] 219 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by lunarcadia:
It's not the dogs fault. Honestly, I didn't see a sturdy fence blocking the front door. They flashed to a wobbly looking mesh they called a 'fence', but if I lived near a busy road and had pets that were precious to me, you'd better believe I'd invest in something better than that to protect my dogs. It was the owners fault.
Score: [-] 234 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by boredatwork:
How fast do you have to be driving to have a 13lb. miniature breed dog damage your bumper enough to cause it to in turn damage your radiator?
Score: [-] 179 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by PulsisX:
« 2manyusernames : The family should pay for the damages and pay for his legal fees for fighting their frivolous lawsuit.
The accident was the dog's fault. The dog is owned by the family, therefor they are liable for damages caused by the dog.
The man had expenses and only asking for $1100 is proof that he is only looking to break even, not trying to score some free cash.
Doesn't seem to me that there should be any question whatsoever - IF the dog was at fault.
It really is an open and shut case. Emotions shouldn't come into play. The family's love for the dog doesn't mean they are not liable for damages caused by the dog whether those damages are damage to a car or if the dog bit someone. I am ready to replace the US system of justice with YOU! We can get you a nice desk and a comfy chair and you can just bang through all this crap.
Score: [-] 88 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by donteatpoop:
« boredatwork : How fast do you have to be driving to have a 13lb. miniature breed dog damage your bumper enough to cause it to in turn damage your radiator? Get a 10 lb bowling ball. Stand on a ladder approximately five feet above the hood of your car and drop it. That ball isn't traveling very fast in so short a fall, but look at the damage it has done. And that's 3 lbs less than the dog.
You can send your lawsuit for following through with this experiment to donteatpoop@donteatpoop.com
Score: [-] 138 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by dollyllama:
« 2manyusernames : Of course the dog is at fault. You may be required to "watch where you drive" but you can not predict the future. Assuming the man was obeying traffic laws and was alert there is nothing he could have done to prevent the accident. The dog ran into the street, into the path of his vehicle. It is often times impossible to prevent the accident.
I have collided with a deer twice since living here in Florida. They are a lot larger than a dog, yet you still have no time to react. Hitting an animal - even birds while driving happens and most times it is unavoidable no matter how much you are looking at where you are driving
A child walking down the street without look shouldn't be hit if someone is paying attention. A child who darts into the path of an oncoming vehicle may very well be hit and no, it is not the driver's fault since there was no way to prevent the accident.
Now personally, I wouldn't have sued. I would have ate the $1100 but perhaps he is not capable of taking that sort of loss. Actually it is the driver's fault if a child gets hit. Go read the driver's manual, you are suppose to be prepared to stop and avoid collisions at all times. You are suppose to keep your animals under your control. If the driver had hit a child under the same circumstances he would be liable. The law does not look at pets the same way. Yet if it were a child the case would be considered an accident and neither side would prevail against the other.
The lawsuit is a wash, a good judge will dismiss the case.
Score: [-] 158 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by walktheplank:
The driver is a heartless, insensitive b*****d.
I hope after he gets his car repaired that he gets car jacked, beaten within an inch of his life, and when the cops get his car back - I hope it's in pieces.
Poor doggy.
I wouldn't say this was the "dog's fault." Please, dogs are animals. They don't know anything about traffic or road rules.
Score: [-] 20 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by Kevertje:
« walktheplank : The driver is a heartless, insensitive b*****d.
I hope after he gets his car repaired that he gets car jacked, beaten within an inch of his life, and when the cops get his car back - I hope it's in pieces.
Poor doggy.
I wouldn't say this was the "dog's fault." Please, dogs are animals. They don't know anything about traffic or road rules. You are right about 1 part: this wasn't the dog's fault. The dog's owners were at fault. It may not have been on purpose, but they still failed to make sure that their dog caused damage to others. Technically a pet is just a posession. If something you own causes damage to someone else because you weren't careful, then you're liable.
This guy was driving an 11 year old car, which most likely means he can't afford something better. Saying he's heartless and wishing for him to be "beaten within an inch of his life" seems to indicate that you haven't thought things through.
What if this guy had seen the dog and swerved to avoid it? Then losing control over his car and crashing into a lamp post or a house (goodness forbid he crashes into a person). Perhaps even getting killed in the crash? What would your response be?
If I can avoid hitting an animal, I will. If there's no safe way, that's too bad, but I value my life and that of others slightly higher than an animal's.
Score: [-] 95 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« dollyllama : Actually it is the driver's fault if a child gets hit. Go read the driver's manual, you are suppose to be prepared to stop and avoid collisions at all times. You are suppose to keep your animals under your control. If the driver had hit a child under the same circumstances he would be liable. The law does not look at pets the same way. Yet if it were a child the case would be considered an accident and neither side would prevail against the other.
The lawsuit is a wash, a good judge will dismiss the case. I have read the manual :)
There are many times when it is physically impossible to stop a vehicle in time no matter how aware you are of your surroundings. I'm not talking about some kid that darts into traffic a couple of car lengths ahead. I am talking about one that darts right out in front. In those cases the driver is not liable by simple logic and the laws of physics.
Of course that is true with other vehicles as well. If I pull right out in front of you - say when I'm passing - and we crash, I am fully 100% responsible. There was no way you could have avoided the collision. There simply wasn't enough time to stop the vehicle. Newton's 1st law of motion supersedes other laws.
This is of course assuming he was following the traffic laws, especially the speed limit in a residential area. Since he was not ticketed, nor has the family accused him of excessive speeding, it is easily assumable that he was obeying the laws at the time.
Score: [-] 71 [+].
Posted: 5 months ago by dollyllama:
« 2manyusernames : I have read the manual :)
There are many times when it is physically impossible to stop a vehicle in time no matter how aware you are of your surroundings. I'm not talking about some kid that darts into traffic a couple of car lengths ahead. I am talking about one that darts right out in front. In those cases the driver is not liable by simple logic and the laws of physics.
Of course that is true with other vehicles as well. If I pull right out in front of you - say when I'm passing - and we crash, I am fully 100% responsible. There was no way you could have avoided the collision. There simply wasn't enough time to stop the vehicle. Newton's 1st law of motion supersedes other laws.
This is of course assuming he was following the traffic laws, especially the speed limit in a residential area. Since he was not ticketed, nor has the family accused him of excessive speeding, it is easily assumable that he was obeying the laws at the time. Quite true, that is why some things are simply a wash in court. An accident, is an accident. Both sides equally right and wrong at the same time.
Score: [-] 22 [+].
< 1 >