# Hit by car, who is at fault



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

So, if a dog is hit by a car, who is to blame? The owner or the driver?

Just curious as to everyones thoughts. Would the fault change if it is a dog that runs loose, vs. a dog that maybe escaped chasing a cat or something?


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

In a pedestrian vs car accident, the driver is almost always at fault. the pedestrian would have had to jump or run suddenly into the path of the oncoming car, or be wearing lo-vis clothing at night in the middle of the road or something similar.

If the driver could have avoided the dog but didn't make a good faith effort to do so, I'd blame the driver. Otherwise I think the dog owner has to take the blame. I don't think non-compliance with leash laws or licensing should be relevant. If the driver gets a ticket for texting while driving, then I think it has to be driver's fault.

That's just an opinion. I'd be surprised if a driver's insurance company would ever pay on such a claim without a lawsuit or credible treat of one.


----------



## Max and Me (Aug 19, 2011)

In many (if not all) states in the US it's the dog owner's fault. It is the responsibility of the animal's owner to keep it confined or under leash control.


----------



## Jpepper (Nov 11, 2011)

I ran over two women leaving downtown Dallas one night.... Police saw it. Told me how drunk those women were and let me leave. They just suddenly walked across the road not at a crosswalk and got hit by my car. I even had hair in my windshield the next morning from the incident. So not always is it the drivers fault.


----------



## PackMomma (Sep 26, 2011)

It's almost sort of like hitting a deer.. dogs or other animals like cats, rabbits, etc just sort of jump out onto roads without warning and drivers cannot do much to avoid them. Its unfortunate but dogs don't have any more rights then other animals when it comes to car accidents. Fortunately for dogs though they have owners that should be responsible enough to keep them safe from these accidents. A part from strays I guess. 

If a driver blatantly hit a dog, when it could have been avoided, then yes I totally agree its the drivers fault, but I imagine that's rarely the case, and if so.. almost impossible to prove. 

I have a few times tried to be a good samaritan and prevent dog/car accidents.. I have stopped on busy roads or intersections, putting myself at risk to catch someones dog wandering around in traffic. I simply could not just let them wander around and maybe get hit. Once it was a black lab, wandering around in the middle of the night on one of Alberta's biggest highways that runs through the city, in the rain. I actually almost hit him myself, as I couldn't see him being dark and dog being black and highway slick with rain.. I swerved and slammed on my brakes, and got out and he jumped right in the truck. I was 2 blocks from the SPCA so I dropped him off.. atleast he was alive! lol

The second time, two wiemeraners, dodging in and out traffic on another very busy route in the city. I was stopped at a light waiting to turn left, so I jumped out, managed to grab one of them by the collar, they were extremely frightened, but I grabbed the one and the other followed, threw them in the back of the truck and the intersection was a block from my house so as I'm driving down my street, this guy comes running out waving me down, as he see's the dogs in the back of the truck "those are my dogs! where did you find them!?". I was very surprised those two didn't get hit.. I nearly got hit saving them, but I felt it was the right thing to do. However, it was the owners fault they were wandering around in traffic in the first place. He told me once he retrieved his dogs from my truck that they managed to escape from the back yard.... well, unfortunately its still owners fault if they can't properly contain their dogs. Just my opinion though.


----------



## KaywinnitLee (Jan 1, 2012)

I would say the owner is at fault for not controlling their dog.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

The owner is at fault regardless of WHY their dog was not under their control.


----------



## Gigit (Dec 30, 2011)

The dog shouldn't be running around loose, making it the owner's fault.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Does anyone know--if the dog caused damage to the car, would the owner be on the hook for damages? Or do the insurance companies view it as an "act of nature" like hitting a deer?

I agree that morally it's the owner's fault (unless the driver swerves out of his way to purposely hit the dog--which is far too common). I don't know the legalities of it, though.


----------



## LoveCWCs (Oct 21, 2011)

At my last agility facility (I rhyme some of the time) there was a situation where a girl had two black labs. She refused to keep them on lead. Thought she didn't need to, that they were too well trained. 

They weren't really all that well trained. Opal was better behaved. Her labs were known for coming in the facility and having "accidents" on the mats. I don't know what she didn't take them to potty before the lesson, but whatever. 

She was a hapless kind of person. 

Anyway. Opal and I had to leave early one night from class, but on the night we left early, apparently an accient occured after class. Bear in mind, class was at 8:30 pm in a country area (read, not well lit). One of this woman's dogs was hit and it was a bad accident and the dog broke a leg. 

The dog was hit by a trainer. Not sure which trainer. I only got this second hand. 

No one heard from her until a vet bill was sent to the facility. 

I don't know what happened, but I know the facility ended up paying for the vet bill, but now they have this really strict rule that all dogs must be on a leash at all times, with the exception of when the dog is actually running a course.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Does anyone know--if the dog caused damage to the car, would the owner be on the hook for damages? Or do the insurance companies view it as an "act of nature" like hitting a deer?
> 
> I agree that morally it's the owner's fault (unless the driver swerves out of his way to purposely hit the dog--which is far too common). I don't know the legalities of it, though.


If you have collision, the comprehensive coverage will pay, same as if you hit a cow or deer or telephone pole. Given enough information, they might even investigate and try to recover from the dog owner, if it sounds promising.


----------



## Lamora (Aug 16, 2011)

> If a driver blatantly hit a dog, when it could have been avoided, then yes I totally agree its the drivers fault, but I imagine that's rarely the case, and if so.. almost impossible to prove


. 

We had someone hit our dog like this, you could see the tire tracks in the snow, She wasnt even in the road. He went straight off the road to hit our Suzie. Come to find out the "person", for the lack of a better word, was doing that to any dog he seen. 

In country tho, dogs run loose, but this was just plain murder. imo. this happend 30 yrs ago, still upsets us to think about it.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

So, if someones dogwas hit.and killed, would you.consider them.an irresponsible owner?

Like if the dog was on a long lead, but darted in front of a vehicle?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Or what about a dog with a thought solid recall, that didn't work when a rabbit ran out?


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

IMO, it is nearly always the owner's fault with the exception of people flying off the road to intentionally hit a dog.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

juliemule said:


> Or what about a dog with a thought solid recall, that didn't work when a rabbit ran out?


 I'd blame the owner. It IS irresponsible to have a dog offleash, and not have it under control. If they "thought" it was solid, but the dog went after a squirrel, then they were wrong, so it is still their fault. VERY FEW dogs should be allowed off leash in my opinion. Most people have dogs that aren't nearly as trained as they think. Those dogs end up paying for their owner's irresponsibility/ignorance with their lives at times. 

Even people who have their dogs in fenced yards, and a kid or utility worker opens the gate, and lets the dog out, are irresponsible, if they didn't have the gate padlocked. There are ways to make things pretty safe. Accidents can happen, like a faulty collar/leash breaking and a dog gets loose, but those things are far rarer than preventable things. But a lot of people won't padlock gates for instance, because it inconveniences them to have to unlock it to use it. 

I'm harder on owners than on dogs, because, people have the ability to use their brains. Some just don't. I give leeway to people that get a new dog and it jumps a fence that is pretty high, and would normally contain most dogs.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

My neighbor's 110 pound dog was fatally hit by a car. The dog almost made it home to die. The car was damaged. The driver took the owner information off of the tag and notified our neighbors that their dog was dead. 

My nieghbors insurance ended up paying for the damage to the car.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

If the dog is off leash, I think it's almost always the dog owner's fault, unless the dog was just standing in the middle of the road not moving or something. It is amazing how hard it can be to see or react to an animal before it is right in front of your car. 



juliemule said:


> So, if someones dogwas hit.and killed, would you.consider them.an irresponsible owner?
> 
> Like if the dog was on a long lead, but darted in front of a vehicle?


It takes more of a pattern of behavior for me to consider an owner irresponsible. Accidents - not just car accidents, but a dog slipping out the front door, a leash breaking or getting pulled out of your hand, etc. - happen. I wouldn't necessarily consider something like that irresponsible. But if someone had a habit of letting their dog run loose, or knew their dog could get over the fence and didn't replace it, something like that I would be more inclined to feel was irresponsible behavior.

As for the long leash - I once saw a dog that was hit and killed by a car on what I believe (although the details are a bit foggy) was a regular 6' leash. It was a complete freak accident, the dog was pottying on the boulevard and darted off the curb in front of a car parked at the curb just as someone was pulling in to park in front of the car and the dog actually ran into the wheel on the passenger side, so the driver never even saw the dog. Don't know what to think about "fault" there. It was pretty freakish.


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

Owners fault 100% and I disagree with cars hitting people normally being the drivers fault. It really depends on the situation- however in most municipalities it is illegal to let a dog run loose so if it gets hit by a car it's owners fault. Also, even if the driver intentionally runs over the dog- 100% owners fault. If you care for your pets keep them up. Leash law or not. At least you control where you're pets are- and if they are with you and not running loose the likelihood that they get hit by or car or killed by a freak is greatly diminished. I find it disgusting that people always try to place blame on others. YOU as the OWNER and MASTER of your dog are responsible for your dog's safety. No one else is.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

juliemule said:


> So, if someones dogwas hit.and killed, would you.consider them.an irresponsible owner?
> 
> Like if the dog was on a long lead, but darted in front of a vehicle?


Accidents happen even to the most responsible people. Equipment failures, unexpected acts of others, honest mistakes in judgement.... Even a responsible owner has to accept responsibility.

Even in your example, where the dog's on a 100 foot lead, 50 feet from the street, could be an irresponsible owner. Or, it could be the owner is responsible yet stupid, or responsible yet distracted or fatigued, or misinformed about the length of the lead, or a poor estimater of distances.

Even if your dog has "perfect recall," when you unhook the leash you are accepting the risk that one day he'll face a temptation he can't resist.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Thank you all for the responses. I agree with most said here. I do feel that 99% its the owners fault. Yet, I believe accidents can happen.

I had one that was hit and killed years ago. I blame myself, I had just moved, new fence, and the dog went right through a gap, crossed the road and was killed. I should have checked the fence better. Never had a chance to use his recall, as I didn't see him out, just heard the noise, ran around and the driver never stopped.

On the other hand, when I first got Raven, she was in a very safe fenced yard. She chewed her way through a door (full wood) and into the back porch, ate everything, while I was at work. She was fine, luckily, but I never saw that coming. Now, the entire enclosure is also electric, which I don't like, but it stops dogs from eating a metal fence. LOL, got to love those belgians!


----------



## lauren17 (Apr 14, 2009)

When I hit my neighbors dog I wanted to help pay for vet bills and thought it was my fault. I was 16 and I think I was speeding and I felt terrible about it. The neighbors disagreed though and took the blame and full responsibility for letting their dogs run loose. Both of their dogs were in the road and would chase my car every time I went by. I had swerved to miss hitting one of the dogs and didn't see the other dog on the other side of the car. The dog broke his leg and had to have surgery, unfortunately the owners still to this day let the dogs run loose. I do think that it is the owners fault no matter why the dog was running loose. I do hear stories of people intentionally hitting dogs but I think the owner is still to blame in most cases because the dog shouldn't be somewhere that a person could hit it.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Sometimes the driver is "at fault" for causing an accident, while the owner has to accept responsibility for failing to keep his dog out of danger. 

A driver who causes an accident (texting while driving for example, veer off course and run over a dog standing beside the curb) can't escape blame just because "the victim shouldn't have been there."


----------



## DobermanGuy (Dec 16, 2011)

DustyCrockett said:


> That's just an opinion. I'd be surprised if a driver's insurance company would ever pay on such a claim without a lawsuit or credible treat of one.


Somewhat recently. Nationwide sued the dog owner because of the damages that the off leash dog did to the car... And won.


----------



## marsha=whitie (Dec 29, 2008)

If a driver strikes a dog, the owner is definitely at fault for allowing their dog to run loose. If the dog does damage to the car that struck it while loose, the dog owner is responsible for damages done, regardless of whether or not the dog is killed.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

An accident like this has actually just happened around here. 
There was a huge accident with a bus, who swerved on the road and hit three cars, the third car was launched into the air and was spiked on a tree that fell over underneath the weight. Lots of damage done, luckily nobody was injured other than the bus driver himself. 

The bus driver claimed he was startled by a dog that suddenly ran across the street. He made a sudden move to evade the dog--and caused the accident. 

It is reported that the bus driver wasn't at fault, because the dog was loose where it should obviously have been on leash. When the owner of the dog is found, he'll be held accountable for the damage his dog caused. 

Then again... there are also rumors that there wasn't a dog in sight at the time of the accident. Perhaps the dog was made up by the bus driver so he wouldn't be held accountable? But that's another story. And just a rumor. Then again... the dog and its owner have yet to be found.

EDIT: oops, just saw I read the starting post wrong. Sorry.


----------



## The Feather Duster (Apr 14, 2010)

Excuse me, but did someone or someones say something about drivers INTENTIONALLY hitting dogs or are my dim old eyes failing me at last? If I have in fact, read correctly, what's up with THAT?? I don't mean to swerve from the original topic (and do forgive the bad pun).

I get that some people are "dog people" (us) and some people are not dog people (not us), but to attempt to injure, maim or kill a dog? Does. Not. Compute.

Maybe someone got bitten or their child got bitten for whatever reason (probably not the dogs fault), but still ... no reason to get a hate on for dogs in general to the point of wanting to kill any dog in sight.

At any rate, my dog is always leashed for her own safely. I would love to let her off-leash as my little Plume can run like the wind and does love to run. But in the traffic choked streets of Beijing, where the driving is insane and without enforced rules (as in, traffic lights are mere ornamentation and pretty colours but nothing you pay real attention to as regards driving rules), Plume is much better off on a leash.

And Chinese drivers, as terrible as they are, have never in my five + years of living here, actually tried to kill a dog whilst driving. They have managed to kill dogs on the road by sheer accident and they have felt deep remorse and have offered to pay damages.

But to kill a dog with intention? I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that one ...


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Yes it seems to be a game to some people, deliberately running over dogs or other small animals. I have over heardguys talking and laughing about "5 points for that old dog", I lost it, but it did no good to give them my opinion.


----------



## The Feather Duster (Apr 14, 2010)

That's pretty sick and I'm glad you seem to think so too.

Were I to witness something like that, I would have something to say about it - strongly worded - and might lose my life in the process, depending on how vicious the thugs were.

Sometimes I'm so glad I live in Asia. Bad things can happen here. To dogs, which are eaten in parts of Asia. Not good. But to deliberately kill dogs, small animals and then laugh about it?

How do you spell sadistic nutters??


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

The Feather Duster said:


> Excuse me, but did someone or someones say something about drivers INTENTIONALLY hitting dogs or are my dim old eyes failing me at last? If I have in fact, read correctly, what's up with THAT?? I don't mean to swerve from the original topic (and do forgive the bad pun).
> 
> I get that some people are "dog people" (us) and some people are not dog people (not us), but to attempt to injure, maim or kill a dog? Does. Not. Compute.



I don't know anyone personally that will do this but I know quite a few people that proudly say they will speed up to hit a cat they see on the road. I always have to respond with "What right to do have to kill someone's pet?"
Its disgusting, it makes me sick. 

That being said, as sad as it is to say if given the choice between hitting an oncoming car, a ditch, or a dog, I wouldn't want to but I would choose the dog because it would probably do the least damage and there would be very little chance of me or my passengers dying (our ditches around here are steep if you are on the main road and just last month a high school kid (one of our distant neighbors) rolled his car and almost ended up in the river when he went off the road a little bit because of bad ice. He was unharmed if anyone wondered, just spooked.)


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

The Feather Duster said:


> Excuse me, but did someone or someones say something about drivers INTENTIONALLY hitting dogs or are my dim old eyes failing me at last? If I have in fact, read correctly, what's up with THAT?? I don't mean to swerve from the original topic (and do forgive the bad pun).
> 
> I get that some people are "dog people" (us) and some people are not dog people (not us), but to attempt to injure, maim or kill a dog? Does. Not. Compute.
> 
> ...


When I was trying to catch Rusty (stray for 3 yrs...I left food and water for him for 9 months before he trusted me enough to let me touch him, so I could catch him), I had someone try to run him over intentionally. It was about a month before I caught him, and Rusty would recognize my car, and run alongside the road to where I would feed him. Well, I was driving up the road, and rusty came running along the shoulder (about 6 feet off of the rd...definitely not on the rd), and a guy in a pickup, intentionally drove onto the shoulder trying to run him over. I flagged him down and asked "What the hell he was doing?!" He said he was tired of him sitting outside his fenced yard, making his dogs bark. So I told him that I was trying to catch him, and to please, leave him alone for a few weeks, as I would be catching him and taking him home. He said he would. I brought him home New Yrs Eve day (3 yrs ago), in spite of wanting to wait until after the holidays, (to make sure a vet was open, if he didn't get along with my dogs, and someone got bitten), because I was worried that someone would shoot bottle rockets at him, or something like that.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I don't understand people surprised at what we're capable of (some of us) mothers and fathers killing their children or spouses or both. A dog on the road is definitely road-kill to some. 

The good news is the "spotted nikes" in the world that help to balance at least some of the dog stuff going on.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I know there are many horror stories from rescues in Spain, telling about how it is pretty common over there to intentionally hit a dog when you see one on the road. Tragic, very sad... but dogs don't have much value over there. In my country alone, there are 160+ rescues trying to help dogs (and cats) in places like Spain... 
I'm so glad to live in a country where animal welfare is high on the agenda, but I'm aware that in many places on earth, it's not. People generally start to think about animal welfare, when their own welfare is pretty good. And unfortunately, human welfare isn't all that great in many places. It's only logical where priority lies, with humans of course. But it's still tragic for animals who suffer.


----------



## KcCrystal (Sep 12, 2008)

My first dog was struck and killed by a car. I was getting him out of the yard, and the Clip on his leash broke and he took off. I was following down the road and saw the guy hit him. I was disgusted. He said Kirby had it coming by being in his way. I went back home to get the car and pick him up off the side of the road, came back and Kirby's collar and tags where missing. 2 days later the guy who hit him called us demanding money. He finally dropped it, but I never got my dog's collar back. I wanted to keep it as a memento.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

My grandpa's dog was hit on purpose, with my grandpa standing right there. He confronted the guy later (the guy didn't stop at the time but he recognized the car) and he said "chill man, I thought he was a cat or a raccoon or something". I don't believe him--what kind of raccoon stands around with an old guy on the side of the road? Even if that was true, what right does he have to cause suffering to any creature? Sadly, I know very few men who _won't_ swerve out of their way to run over a "varmint". Not all of them will hit a dog on purpose, though. But a fair percentage will.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

I can remember as a child, my Mom swerving the car trying to miss a little beagle mix of some sort. She somehow just nicked him. She was absolutely grief stricken that she almost ran the poor thing over. The owners came out of the house and said for her to not worry about it ... it was like the fifth time he had been hit ... and he will either learn to quit chasing cars ... or he will just get killed ............ The owners acted like ... " Oh well! "

Those people did not deserve to have a dog with that frame of mind ... IMO.


----------



## WheatenDaneMom (Nov 4, 2011)

Personal experience... owner is at fault.


----------



## WheatenDaneMom (Nov 4, 2011)

KcCrystal said:


> My first dog was struck and killed by a car. I was getting him out of the yard, and the Clip on his leash broke and he took off. I was following down the road and saw the guy hit him. I was disgusted. He said Kirby had it coming by being in his way. I went back home to get the car and pick him up off the side of the road, came back and Kirby's collar and tags where missing. 2 days later the guy who hit him called us demanding money. He finally dropped it, but I never got my dog's collar back. I wanted to keep it as a memento.


I know this is evil to say... but I would have gotten my own revenge on that guy. I would have bided my time... and got him back.


----------



## The Feather Duster (Apr 14, 2010)

wvasko said:


> I don't understand people surprised at what we're capable of (some of us) mothers and fathers killing their children or spouses or both. A dog on the road is definitely road-kill to some.
> 
> The good news is the "spotted nikes" in the world that help to balance at least some of the dog stuff going on.


Call it horror mixed with disbelief ...


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

The Feather Duster said:


> Call it horror mixed with disbelief ...


Turn on the news sometime. This is small potatoes in comparison to what people are capable of.


----------



## Listracian (Jan 6, 2012)

You aren't allowed to swerve to miss animals over here - you do just because its like instinct to but if a dog ran out and you swerved and hit another car, it could be more your fault then the owners. Though the owner would possibly get in trouble but its a rule i don't like.

On the other hand we had a case over here recently that people wanted to kill a dude for. I kinda felt sorry for him, it was a tragic accident but a guy was driving over a big hill and it was foggy and stuff and a dog had gotten loose and it had a long training lead on. The lead got caught up in the wheel or something under the car and the dog was dragged a good 6 miles along the road before the guy stopped and realised.

The dude handed himself in to the police and was let go as they couldn't arrest him for cruelty as his story needed to be worked out. Could the lead get caught up etc. They did a lot of tests and the guy was let off and the owners were the ones who got a warning. They had no grounds to prosecute them as there wasn't any harm caused to people. But it was a pretty gruesome thing and the dog had tugged the lead free and got it's self killed accidentally. No one got in trouble really but it was a weird one. The driver was let off though, as he hadn't done anything wrong.


----------



## The Feather Duster (Apr 14, 2010)

Bones said:


> Turn on the news sometime. This is small potatoes in comparison to what people are capable of.


No thanks.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OK, since I was thinking about my "uncle" (that dog was more my grandpa's kid than his kids were), what do people think about this situation? 

Walking along a country road, with the dogs off-leash. The dogs range about 30 feet from the human. The dogs know to go to the side when a car comes. Speed limit is 45 on dirt roads. So a car comes ripping along, faster than 45, the dogs go to the side of the road. The car swerves deliberately to hit the dogs, the younger Lab dodges out of the way, but the older Schnauzer isn't fast enough and is killed. The driver never slows down and speeds away laughing.

I guess I have a hard time blaming the owner in that situation. Yes, it's a risk to walk your dogs off-leash anywhere. I also walk my dogs off-leash along country roads, and I accept the risk because I think it's worth it, and I think/hope it's not a large risk. I also think we should be able to have a reasonable expectation for other people to behave themselves like decent human beings. I hope that if the driver hit ME deliberately that he would still be charged with vehicular homicide/assault, even though technically people aren't supposed to be walking on roads.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I think that even though the owner is partly at fault in this situation, the major blame goes to the driver. Ugh, some people disgust me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Avie said:


> I think that even though the owner is partly at fault in this situation, the major blame goes to the driver. Ugh, some people disgust me.


Maybe I'm not sure what's meant by "at fault". Should nobody ever walk their dogs off-leash? The dogs were well-behaved and under voice control. You can't stay on the sidewalk if there's no sidewalk, so the side of the road is comparable. I don't dive over the barbed-wire fence every time someone drives by, because I have a reasonable expectation they aren't going to try to kill me. I think it was an act of random evil, and I don't think the owner is at fault in that kind of situation.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I don't know what the road was like, but now I do, it reminds me of roads in small villages in the countryside here. No sidewalk either, just a road with fenced meadows on both sides. 

I think you're absolutely right about have those reasonable expectations. If you live in a village or something, where else are you going to walk your dog? The dogs were under control, so no reason to worry there. The only little thing is that the dogs and the owner weren't allowed to walk on the road (is it illegal?) even though I understand there really wasn't anywhere else to walk. (which is what I meant with 'partly at fault', by law, if it truly is illegal) 
I know that, even though it incredibly strange and would feel totally unjustified to me, over here a driver who ran over your dog at a road I described above, could actually sue you and win the case. Very hurtful. Strange law system here. 

I agree it was an act of pure evil... I can't understand how people could be so cruel.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

> Does anyone know--if the dog caused damage to the car, would the owner be on the hook for damages? Or do the insurance companies view it as an "act of nature" like hitting a deer?


I remember reading this summer about a family in NH or MA whose dog was hit by a car in front of their house. The drivers insurance company ended up sending the family a claim for the damage caused by the dog. I tried to find the story but had no success. My guess is that it would depend on the situation and if the insurance company thought they could actually collect. I am not sure if I am remembering this right or not, but I believe it was a dual-blame situation (IMO), something like a loose dog, a dark road and a texting while driving teenager. I don't remember if the insurance company ever did collect on it or not, but I know the family was fighting it. 

I think blame rests mostly with the dog owner. Of course there are situations, like the one above, where everyone is kind of to blame, but in the end it is always going to be the owners responsibility to keep their dog safe.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't know what the actual laws are about walking on dirt roads. I know that cyclists are specifically given right-of-way but I'm not sure about pedestrians. I think pedestrians may have right-of-way everywhere, and I would think that dogs walking with pedestrians would be viewed the same. There are no leash laws outside town limits.

Not that it matters, because dogs are property and damages are limited to actual cash value (in the case of pound dogs, not very much). And even if it were illegal to deliberately hit a dog, how would you prove they did it deliberately? They could claim the dog ran out in front of them suddenly or something like that. Can't legislate morality.


----------



## jersey_gray (Dec 8, 2011)

It is the dog owner's fault. It is your responsibility to take the needed measures to keep your dog contained in your yard and leashed on walks. Obviously the driver should avoid hitting the dog if it's SAFELY possible to avoid the dog but they shouldn't run over a person to avoid hitting the dog. My dogs have gotten out (via the front door) on a few occasions. If they got hit the only person I would blame would be myself for the complete lack of training my dogs have and the person who let them run out the door in the first place. Not the person driving the car. Legally I don't know where the fault would lie.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Can't legislate morality.


Unfortunately. 

I just checked with my father who knows more about this. Apparently here, when there is no sidewalk, pedestrians should walk on the left side of the road (didn't know that) so they can see oncoming traffic coming their way, and vice versa. When there's a sidewalk, you have to walk on the sidewalk. Pedestrians are only allowed on so called 'B-ways' and country roads. So traffic can't go more than 60 km/h, so that's 37 miles per hour tops. Here, dogs are to be on leash at all times, everywhere, unless specifically specified otherwise. So if a dog is hit by a car outside of an off-leash zone, the owner is always (legally) at fault.


----------



## jersey_gray (Dec 8, 2011)

Willowy said:


> OK, since I was thinking about my "uncle" (that dog was more my grandpa's kid than his kids were), what do people think about this situation?
> 
> Walking along a country road, with the dogs off-leash. The dogs range about 30 feet from the human. The dogs know to go to the side when a car comes. Speed limit is 45 on dirt roads. So a car comes ripping along, faster than 45, the dogs go to the side of the road. The car swerves deliberately to hit the dogs, the younger Lab dodges out of the way, but the older Schnauzer isn't fast enough and is killed. The driver never slows down and speeds away laughing.
> 
> I guess I have a hard time blaming the owner in that situation. Yes, it's a risk to walk your dogs off-leash anywhere. I also walk my dogs off-leash along country roads, and I accept the risk because I think it's worth it, and I think/hope it's not a large risk. I also think we should be able to have a reasonable expectation for other people to behave themselves like decent human beings. I hope that if the driver hit ME deliberately that he would still be charged with vehicular homicide/assault, even though technically people aren't supposed to be walking on roads.


The dogs should have been on a leash but that was a sick individual to intentionally run down the dog and laugh!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Maybe I'm not sure what's meant by "at fault". Should nobody ever walk their dogs off-leash? The dogs were well-behaved and under voice control. You can't stay on the sidewalk if there's no sidewalk, so the side of the road is comparable. I don't dive over the barbed-wire fence every time someone drives by, because I have a reasonable expectation they aren't going to try to kill me. I think it was an act of random evil, and I don't think the owner is at fault in that kind of situation.


Well if you live in an area where people regularly swerve to hit loose dogs, I do think it's irresponsible to walk off leash by the road. 

Honestly, walking dogs off leash is ALWAYS somewhat risky and you are ALWAYS responsible for consciously making that decision IMO... it's just that most of the time it ends up being fine either through luck or training or living where there isn't dangerous wildlife or around the kind of people who don't intentionally swerve to hit loose dogs.


----------



## Dawnandsienna (Oct 5, 2011)

My dad was involved in a very serious car accident in which another car hit him because he was avoiding a dog in the road. The insurance company went after the dog's owner and won in court because the dog was not under his owner's control. (This was in California if that matters)


----------



## WheatenDaneMom (Nov 4, 2011)

To answer another questions my parent's hunting dog was hit by a car, the dog died and they had to pay for the damage to the vehicle.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

sassafras said:


> Well if you live in an area where people regularly swerve to hit loose dogs, I do think it's irresponsible to walk off leash by the road.


Well, most won't if a person is with them. If only for fear of having the person show up at your house to punch you. Loose dogs are fair game.

It's a calculated risk. Like people who choose to climb rocks for fun. But even so, if someone deliberately frays your ropes, that's not the same as the inherent risk of climbing.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Well, most won't if a person is with them. If only for fear of having the person show up at your house to punch you. Loose dogs are fair game.
> 
> It's a calculated risk. Like people who choose to climb rocks for fun. But even so, if someone deliberately frays your ropes, that's not the same as the inherent risk of climbing.


Unless of course you live in an area where people regularly fray ropes......

I guess maybe if you let your dog wander off leash, you ought to get some pet insurance.........


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think going for a walk is sort of different than "letting your dog wander off-leash". What if the dog is on a long line and someone swereves to hit it? Any different then?

It seems like blaming the owner in that situation is like blaming the parents if a child is abducted from his bedroom. I guess they should have surrounded the house with iron bars or something.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I think going for a walk is sort of different than "letting your dog wander off-leash". What if the dog is on a long line and someone swereves to hit it? Any different then?
> 
> It seems like blaming the owner in that situation is like blaming the parents if a child is abducted from his bedroom. I guess they should have surrounded the house with iron bars or something.


 Who walks their leashed dog/on a long line, etc, where the dog can get close enough to the road to be hit, without having the owner get hit. My mom lives where there aren't sidewalks, and anytime i've walked the dog, I've aways had him on the side of me away from traffic. (Walking facing traffic, dog on left side). 

Walking a loose dog that isn't100% reliably at heel, beside a road is foolhardy, and if the dog gets hit, would be due to an irresponsible owner.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

There's a difference between feeling someone is responsible for something and blaming them.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

spotted nikes said:


> Who walks their leashed dog/on a long line, etc, where the dog can get close enough to the road to be hit, without having the owner get hit?


If someone swerves to hit the dog on purpose, how far off the road would you have to pull the dog to prevent that? 5 feet? Probably wouldn't help, swerving 5 feet off the road is no big deal. 10 feet? Maybe. Past the barbed wire? That would work, but now you're technically trespassing (not that anyone cares, but still. It seems unreasonable to make a break for the fenceline every time you see a car). I'm not talking about a busy road. I mean a dirt road, maybe even minimum maintenance, with corn fields on both sides, possibly 2 cars going down it a day. Most of the time I never see a car when we're walking. I'm not going to assume that anyone who does come by is a murderous lunatic or is willing to kill my dog in front of me.

If I had to keep my dogs at heel, what point is there in going out? I would stay in town. I go out in the country so they can run.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

sassafras said:


> There's a difference between feeling someone is responsible for something and blaming them.


 Interesting thought. I guess I would consider it to be the same thing. If I'm responsible for something happening, wouldn't that mean it's my fault? Isn't that blame? Wouldn't it imply negligence and/or irresponsibility?


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Interesting thought. I guess I would consider it to be the same thing. If I'm responsible for something happening, wouldn't that mean it's my fault? Isn't that blame? Wouldn't it imply negligence and/or irresponsibility?


I think you can take responsibiilty for failure to keep your dog out of danger, without letting a careless and reckless driver off the hook.

If your intentional or careless act kills a dog (or a pedestrian for that matter), you've done something wrong regardless of whether it should or should not have been there.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DustyCrockett said:


> I think you can take responsibiilty for failure to keep your dog out of danger, without letting a careless and reckless driver off the hook.


Exactly. You take responsibility for making the decision. No one means for their dog to get hit by a car (or shot... or attacked by a coyote... or run off a bluff...), but you mean for them to be off leash, and the decision to allow them off leash in an area where these things might happen rests squarely on your shoulders. To put it another way, you didn't run over your dog - the blame for that rests with the driver - but you made an informed decision to take the risk that the situation might come up. 

And we all do that kind of thing every day. For example, I don't seatbelt my dogs in the car for a variety of reasons I don't care to go into, just using it as an example of a risk that I choose to assume that could lead to an injury I was responsible for (by making the decision not to seatbelt them) even if I was in an accident that wasn't my _fault_... say, rear-ended at a stop light. Leaving collars on all the time vs. not is another type of choice. There's risk inherent in a lot of decisions we make for our dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DustyCrockett said:


> I think you can take responsibiilty for failure to keep your dog out of danger, without letting a careless and reckless driver off the hook.


I don't really see it as a failure to keep your dog safe. I agree that sometimes things happen that would not have happened if you made a different choice. Like Sassafras' example of collars--if you choose to have your dog wear a collar, he/she might strangle or otherwise come to harm because of the collar. If you choose to have your dog not wear a collar, he/she might get out and be killed as a stray or otherwise come to harm because of not wearing a collar. Neither situation necessarily means you failed to keep your dog safe.

I guess we could all be ultra safe and just keep our dogs at home to sleep on the couch. . .oops! Guess that's not so safe after all! http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=117242

Sometimes things just happen.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I don't really see it as a failure to keep your dog safe.


Well if the purpose of nit-picking whose fault things are is to validate your decisions, I don't think we'll ever really agree. I'm fully willing to admit that sometimes I make decisions for my dogs that carry with them some increased assumption of risk, and therefore I bear some responsibility for possible bad outcomes of those decisions. A freak car-house accident doesn't fall under that category IMO, while choosing to walk off-leash in an area acknowledged to have drivers who intentionally swerve to hit dogs would.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Willowy. Are your cats indoor cats or outdoor cats?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Oh, I fully recognize that I would bear some responsibility for taking certain risks. If the dogs bolted in front of a car or got chewed on by wildlife, or some other natural consequence of running off-leash, I'd understand that's the risk I accepted. But if something occurs because of someone else's wrongdoing, only that person is responsible, IMO. It may be nit-picking but I don't think victims of wrongdoing should be blamed.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Cracker said:


> Willowy. Are your cats indoor cats or outdoor cats?


Not certain what that has to do with anything in this thread, LOL. 

I have too many cats; the neighbors would be extremely upset if they were allowed out. The indoor cats are indoor-only. I also care for the neighborhood ferals, who of course are outdoor-only.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

My dogs are off lead probably ninety percent of the time. Living in the country having a farm to roam on is pretty safe. At training and on call outs they are off lead, with excellent recall. Though no matter how much you train its never fool proof. I worry on calls about working near roadways.

I was proud of Greta a few days ago. As we were coming into the vet clinic I hear a woman start yelling. I look up as her pit bull charges across the parking lot right at Greta. I no sooner got "stay" out of my mouth, he lunges and I was able to block his first bite, then caught his collar. My super reactive dog, though snarling, never moves! Good dog Greta! 
The lady then gets the lead and proceeds to be drug around by this dog. Inside, the techs had to help her as he spotted a cat lol. I nicely recommend obedience classes, she says they will not take him because of his breed! What?


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

This is my dog...
and
This is the road...

My dog belongs on my property...
and
Cars belong on the road..

It actually very simple to understand..
Unless you have stray car on your property.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Oh, I fully recognize that I would bear some responsibility for taking certain risks. If the dogs bolted in front of a car or got chewed on by wildlife, or some other natural consequence of running off-leash, I'd understand that's the risk I accepted. But if something occurs because of someone else's wrongdoing, only that person is responsible, IMO. It may be nit-picking but I don't think victims of wrongdoing should be blamed.


Again, I believe there is a difference between responsibility and blame.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't really see it as a failure to keep your dog safe. I agree that sometimes things happen that would not have happened if you made a different choice. Like Sassafras' example of collars--if you choose to have your dog wear a collar, he/she might strangle or otherwise come to harm because of the collar. If you choose to have your dog not wear a collar, he/she might get out and be killed as a stray or otherwise come to harm because of not wearing a collar. Neither situation necessarily means you failed to keep your dog safe.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sometimes things just happen.


Yeah, maybe not be my failure -- even when I succeed, something else can happen. I was thinking more in general terms; ultimately, their safety is my responsibility. I'm supposed to foresee and prevent events like that. Stack the deck in their favor much as possible.

For example, how often I inspect the fence and whether I repair it *before* a hole breaks open. Do I walk 'em enough so my neighbors know where they belong. Are they well-mannered enough to avoid pissing off the neighbors. Are they wearing their collars with my phone number. Whatever applies.

The Westie slipped out through an unnoticed hole in the fence one day, not wearing his collar. I just knew he wouldn't wander past the house next door. We put up posters, and searched all evening, I was genuinely puzzled as to why he didn't turn up, and started to fear the worst.

Next morning, the neighbor called, saw my poster on the lamp post. It just happens that on the _other_ side of my neighbor lives another westie, who's family was out of town for the weekend. Next door put Scout over in that other house -- he spent the night two doors down with his cousin.

He _probably_ would have slipped back into the yard unnoticed (probably had done so many times). Or, he _might_ have got himself "rehomed." Or run over.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Not certain what that has to do with anything in this thread, LOL.
> 
> I have too many cats; the neighbors would be extremely upset if they were allowed out. The indoor cats are indoor-only. I also care for the neighborhood ferals, who of course are outdoor-only.


Why are your cats indoor cats only? (besides the fact that they are too many cats..) And yes, I have a point to the question. The point is, if you keep your cats inside because it is safer and protects them from accidents, diseases, catfights, poisoning etc. well...that is the same reason people SHOULD have their dogs on a leash. Now you hopefully can see why it has something to do with this thread..and your comments.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think that never walking your dog off-leash (in a place it's allowed and reasonably safe) is like never going to the mall because some maniac might shoot the place up while you're there. You can't live in fear of things that _might_ happen. If people are going to do bad things there's not a lot you can do to avoid it unless you stay home all the time. I do not think dogs should be allowed to roam unsupervised but walking/running off-leash is a normal quality-of-life activity.

My opinions on cats and indoor/outdoor would probably derail the thread.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

You just don't get it. Walking a dog offleash NEAR A ROAD is not safe. Period. You may be able to make 100 trips on that road and have no problem..and then boom. HBC. The number of people I spoke to at the clinic that said "He's never done it before" as their dog lay dying on our table...

And the fact that I'm pretty damn sure your cats are indoor cats because of risk reduction, reducing their ability to do "the things cats do" like hunt birds, makes your "normal quality of life activity" comment hypocritical. Don't get me wrong, my cats will also be always indoor animals...and my dogs will always be on leash anytime we are near a roadway or other significant danger. Period.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I am not sure you understand about minimum-maintenance country roads and the general lack of traffic on them. Or about the lack of other off-leash opportunities around here. But whatever. I do not consider it to be a significant risk. Just because some psycho killed my grandpa's dog does not mean that I'm going to keep my dogs penned up all day.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I am not sure you understand about minimum-maintenance country roads and the general lack of traffic on them. Or about the lack of other off-leash opportunities around here. But whatever. I do not consider it to be a significant risk. Just because some psycho killed my grandpa's dog does not mean that I'm going to keep my dogs penned up all day.



LOL those are the only choices - either walk off-leash, or pen them up all day.



I think all anyone is saying is that you can DO whatever you want, but the results of your choices are your responsibility.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I am not sure you understand about minimum-maintenance country roads and the general lack of traffic on them. Or about the lack of other off-leash opportunities around here. But whatever. I do not consider it to be a significant risk. Just because some psycho killed my grandpa's dog does not mean that I'm going to keep my dogs penned up all day.


Please, I may live in the big city now, but I'm not FROM one...and keeping your dogs penned up all day? What a ridiculous extremist statement. Your arguments hold no water. Whether you choose to leash your dogs or not, or "pen them up" or not..is YOUR decision..but the ramifications of those decisions are ALWAYS on you. You are responsible for the wellbeing and health and safety of your animals, same as if they were children. They have no choice, but you do. Therefore, if something happens because you decided it was okay for your dog to be offleash on the country road then the responsiblity of any accidents lies with you...psycho car driver or not.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I wonder how people feel about letting kids (of reasonable age) go to the playground without an adult, or walk to school with their friends. There's only so much you can shelter yourself, your kids, or your pets.

And, yes, I agree, we are all responsible for the results of our choices. But isn't it letting wrongdoers off the hook to say that the victim bears responsibility for being in the vicinity of the wrongdoing? The fact is, if no psycho deliberately ran over him, Fritz would have been perfectly safe on that country road, and would have gone on to run twice a day, every day, on that road without incident, as he had done for the previous 10 years. I don't think we should try to plan our lives around all possible sociopathic activity. That would have meant that he would have missed out on 7300 uneventful runs to possibly avoid something that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't have had the bad luck to be there when a sociopath drove by.


----------



## Averyismypei (May 24, 2010)

I think its just an accident either way. The dog didnt know better and the car didnt have time to slam on the brakes.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Cracker said:


> Please, I may live in the big city now, but I'm not FROM one...and keeping your dogs penned up all day? What a ridiculous extremist statement. Your arguments hold no water. Whether you choose to leash your dogs or not, or "pen them up" or not..is YOUR decision..but the ramifications of those decisions are ALWAYS on you. You are responsible for the wellbeing and health and safety of your animals, same as if they were children. They have no choice, but you do. Therefore, if something happens because you decided it was okay for your dog to be offleash on the country road then the responsiblity of any accidents lies with you...psycho car driver or not.


 I agree. My dogs are never off leash when out of my fenced yard. Yet they managed to go for long walks everyday, and get plenty of exercise. Dogs don't need to be off leash to be exercised.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I wonder how people feel about letting kids (of reasonable age) go to the playground without an adult, or walk to school with their friends. There's only so much you can shelter yourself, your kids, or your pets.
> 
> And, yes, I agree, we are all responsible for the results of our choices. But isn't it letting wrongdoers off the hook to say that the victim bears responsibility for being in the vicinity of the wrongdoing? The fact is, if no psycho deliberately ran over him, Fritz would have been perfectly safe on that country road, and would have gone on to run twice a day, every day, on that road without incident, as he had done for the previous 10 years. I don't think we should try to plan our lives around all possible sociopathic activity. That would have meant that he would have missed out on 7300 uneventful runs to possibly avoid something that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't have had the bad luck to be there when a sociopath drove by.


If the dog was well trained off leash, why wasn't your grandfather, or whoever was walking him, between him and the rd. You should be walking facing traffic, and the dog would presumably be on your left side away from the rd. Anyone trying to run over the dog would have to run over a person first. Unless the dog wasn't under control, and wandering in the road, or way up ahead and in front of the person walking.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

spotted nikes said:


> I agree. My dogs are never off leash when out of my fenced yard. Yet they managed to go for long walks everyday, and get plenty of exercise. Dogs don't need to be off leash to be exercised.


walking is enough exercise for your dogs? you are lucky.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I wonder how people feel about letting kids (of reasonable age) go to the playground without an adult, or walk to school with their friends. There's only so much you can shelter yourself, your kids, or your pets.
> 
> And, yes, I agree, we are all responsible for the results of our choices. But isn't it letting wrongdoers off the hook to say that the victim bears responsibility for being in the vicinity of the wrongdoing? The fact is, if no psycho deliberately ran over him, Fritz would have been perfectly safe on that country road, and would have gone on to run twice a day, every day, on that road without incident, as he had done for the previous 10 years. I don't think we should try to plan our lives around all possible sociopathic activity. That would have meant that he would have missed out on 7300 uneventful runs to possibly avoid something that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't have had the bad luck to be there when a sociopath drove by.


Why is it so important to you to assign blame at all?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

sassafras said:


> Why is it so important to you to assign blame at all?


Because people who do bad things deserve to be blamed? And because everyone else is blaming the owners. 



DustyCrockett said:


> walking is enough exercise for your dogs? you are lucky.


Exactly. It would not be possible for me to provide enough exercise on leash for 3 large dogs. Or for my grandpa to have provided enough exercise for his Lab on leash.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

spotted nikes said:


> If the dog was well trained off leash, why wasn't your grandfather, or whoever was walking him, between him and the rd. You should be walking facing traffic, and the dog would presumably be on your left side away from the rd. Anyone trying to run over the dog would have to run over a person first. Unless the dog wasn't under control, and wandering in the road, or way up ahead and in front of the person walking.


 If cars hardly ever come, and most of those who do come drive slowly and wave, it's an overreaction to keep the dog near you at all times (also hard to exercise them that way. . .might as well be on leash). Walking "facing traffic" is an interesting concept when there is no traffic. . .but walking on the left is usual. And, yes, dogs usually do run ahead. There are things to sniff and they run a lot faster than humans do. None of this excuses deliberate wrongdoing.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well the owner is always in charge of dog, dog's actions, and sometimes the demise of dog.



> That would have meant that he would have missed out on 7300 uneventful runs


In all fairness there is also something to be said about the above and as long as owner understands and accepts all of the above, good and bad. I surely got no problems.


----------

