We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Dog ran under my car, owner wants 50% of vet bill
Comments
-
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.
It's not about being "out of control", merely 'not under control" - there is a massive difference between the two.
The dog was not being kept under control by the owner, who is responsible for the dog.
The OP could only be held liable is she knew the dog was there and failed to take avoiding action. Clearly the OP didn't know the dog was there.
The dog owner doesn't have a case. Simple
0 -
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.
I've tried training my dog to get the sunday lunch out the oven, dish it up and serve it to the table, but even the most intelligent border collies cannot do that!
In all seriousness, anyone who would train a dog to injure itself is the lowest of the low, im sure my dog understands why we put a lead on him, despite the fact he never steps into a road until we allow him to, is for his own safety...0 -
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 me a dog out off a lead is out of control, because they have minds of their own, even my ray of perfection could go completely crazy off his lead without me knowing (it would hurt his arthritis though, and it wouldnt be for long before he was out of breath, poor old dog). I let my dog off his lead because i trust him, and because i am prepared to take responsibility for anything him being off his lead may cause...0 -
It's not about being "out of control", merely 'not under control" - there is a massive difference between the two.
In that case, it would have to be proved the dog was not under control.The dog was not being kept under control by the owner, who is responsible for the dog.
How do you know?The OP could only be held liable is she knew the dog was there and failed to take avoiding action. Clearly the OP didn't know the dog was there.
The dog owner doesn't have a case. Simple
Well, thank goodness it wasn't child then.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
To me a dog out off a lead is out of control, because they have minds of their own, even my ray of perfection could go completely crazy off his lead without me knowing (it would hurt his arthritis though, and it wouldnt be for long before he was out of breath, poor old dog). I let my dog off his lead because i trust him, and because i am prepared to take responsibility for anything him being off his lead may cause...
Absolute nonsense.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
A dog off a lead isn't necessarily out of control I'll grant you.
A dog off a lead that runs under a car is most definitely out of control. :cool:0 -
In that case, it would have to be proved the dog was not under control.
.
Well that won't be dificult to prove will it. As the dog was under the REAR wheels of OP's car it's pretty obvious she didn't hit the dog, the dog ran under the passing car.
If the dog had been under control and OP had not seen it logic suggests she would have hit it with her front wheels as she ran into it.
Or perhaps she flipped the rear of her car out and caught the dog with her back wheels while turning donuts (where's that rolleye smiley when you need it)Accept your past without regret, handle your present with confidence and face your future without fear0 -
In that case, it would have to be proved the dog was not under control.
How do you know?
Well, thank goodness it wasn't child then.
Why would it have to be "proved the dog was not under control"?? The issue is whether the driver could have known the dog was there, if not then can you explain how he /she could have avoided the incident?
The dog owner on the other hand did know the car was there & should have known what his dog was doing. I really don't see the argument here.
A dog off it's lead is obviously not being kept under control by it's owner - dogs are not robots, they will do what they want if they are not on a lead.
You are absolutely right about thank goodness it wasn't a child, as it could have been quite seriously injured. Doesn't change anything though.
Incidents like this are not merely about "opinions", or "a bloke down the pub said.." it's about knowing who has responsibility and where, if any, negligence can be attributed.
It would be highly unlikely the dog owner could prove the car driver was negligent.0 -
peachyprice wrote: »Well that won't be dificult to prove will it. As the dog was under the REAR wheels of OP's car it's pretty obvious she didn't hit the dog, the dog ran under the passing car.
If the dog had been under control and OP had not seen it logic suggests she would have hit it with her front wheels as she ran into it.
Or perhaps she flipped the rear of her car out and caught the dog with her back wheels while turning donuts (where's that rolleye smiley when you need it)
I wonder, have you ever thought how many directions a car can go in?
The onus would be on the OP to prove the dog was not under control.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.1K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards