Dog ran under my car, owner wants 50% of vet bill

zara*elise

Tell the owner you took your car to a mechanic and they decided to replace the tyre "just in case" and as he's the dog's owner he needs to pay half.

asbokid

wba31 wrote: »

as a responsible dog owner, I have trained my dog to not run under cars...

Sure, but you're a responsible dog owner. However some trainers get their animals to cause deliberate damage.

The Soviets used dogs to carry animal-borne bombs to attack tanks, and the 'merkins were trialling the use of pigeons for kamikaze attacks on propellor-driven enemy aircraft.

http://www.historynet.com/top-secret-wwii-bat-and-bird-bomber-program.htm

It's possible that the man in pyjamas trained his staffordshire pit bull terrier to cause road accidents like this, as an easy source of income.

skiddlydiddly

asbokid wrote: »

Sure, but you're a responsible dog owner. However some trainers get their animals to cause deliberate damage.

The Soviets used dogs to carry animal-borne bombs to attack tanks, and the 'merkins were trialling the use of pigeons for kamikaze attacks on propellor-driven enemy aircraft.

http://www.historynet.com/top-secret-wwii-bat-and-bird-bomber-program.htm

It's possible that the man in pyjamas trained his staffordshire pit bull terrier to cause road accidents like this, as an easy source of income.

A slightly short sighted business model don't you think?He needs to get smart and up his prices a bit to cover all the Staffy's he is going to get through.

asbokid

Just enjoying a quiet fag on the lavatory, looking at Bingham and Berrymans' Personal Injuries and Motor Claims Cases (12th ed).

Chapter 17.. Animals on the Highway..

A few abstract observations ...

Under s.27 of the 1988 RTA -- Control of dogs on roads -- an offence may be committed by a dog owner if the road on which the dog was running out of control is a 'designated road' (i.e. it is subject to local authority order).

Even if it is a 'designated road', then the animal owner may be within the law to let the animal run without a lead, if he is using the dog for "driving or tending sheep or cattle in the course of a trade or business... or at the material time [the dog] in use [was] under proper control for sporting purposes" (e.g. fox hunting)... in these cases, no offence has been committed.

Many of the cases described in B&B rely on the judgment in Deen v Davies [1935] 2 KB 282

Here's one judgment..

".... if an animal owner knows that it has a tendency to run into cyclists or other passengers on the highway, it cannot avail him to say that it was not vice, but a frolicsome disposition, or perhaps mere blundering, which caused the harm. The dog was a nuisance to people and a potential source of danger and the defendant was liable."

This one might be pertinent...

Cooke v Jackson
[1999] LTL, 30 November, CA

The defendant was exercising her dog by riding a bicycle through a park, the dog followed on behind. The dog was approximately 30ft behind the defendant when it ran into the claimant.

HELD: The defendant had negligently created a situation of hazard by riding along a path which pedestrians used and that situation caused the injury. The defendant had a duty to control the dog on the path which she had failed to do."

or

Tierney v Barbour
[2001] All ER (D) 37 (Feb)

The claimant, a motorcyclist, collided with the defendant's dog which had escaped from the defendant's property and run into the road. Shortly before the accident, the claimant had accelerated away from road works at high speed and pulled a wheelie.

HELD: The defendant was negligent for allowing the dog to escape onto a busy road and it was reasonably foreseeable that, if the dog escaped, injury was likely to result. The claimant was riding in a reckless manner but neither his behaviour nor his speed was a material cause of the accident. He had regained proper control of his motorcycle before the dog ran across and accordingly a deduction for contributory negligence was not appropriate."

or this one..

Lister v Vergette
[1964] Times, 12 June Thompson J

The claimant was injured when he was knocked off his moped by the defendant's dog, which emerged suddenly from the gateway of the defendant's house. It was the dog's habit to accompany tractor drivers on their rounds to nearby fields. A tractor was being manoeuvred and the dog probably thought it was being left out and ran to join the tractor driver. The claimant's case was based on Brock v Richards [1951] and dicta of Pearson LJ in Ellis v Johnstone [1963].

HELD: The defendant was not aware of the dog's 'unwelcome attitude to users of the highway' nor of any previous incidents it may have caused. In the circumstances, the defendant had not acted unreasonably in failing to take measures to prevent the dog running out. The claim failed.

Might be as well to ask neighbours whether the dog had a propensity for chasing vehicles, which would indicate negligence on the part of the animal owner.

Outpost

asbokid wrote: »

the animal owner may be within the law to let the animal run without a lead, if he is using the dog for "driving or tending sheep or cattle in the course of a trade or business...

I love the mental image of a Staff being used to herd cattle.

Flyboy152

I think the issue here is proving the dog was out of control. Not being on a lead is not necessarily being out of control.

Outpost

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I think the issue here is proving the dog was out of control. Not being on a lead is not necessarily being out of control.

To be fair though a dog under control is unlikely to run under a moving car.

10JH

I'd possibly explain your situation to him, that you have a baby and you work part-time.

You said he was nice at the time, which must have been during a stressful situation, so I'm sure he's a reasonable person.

birkee

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I think the issue here is proving the dog was out of control. Not being on a lead is not necessarily being out of control.

So it was a controlled act to make the dog run into the car?

Money_maker

I wouldn't explain your situation - none of his business if you have a baby and work PT!

He had pj's and flip flops on - sounds like he's too lazy to properly exercise his dog.

Do not pay - he did not have the animal under control in a private car park (unless he owns the car park, LOL)