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
-
The onus would be on the OP to prove the dog was not under control.
I'm afraid thats where you are wrong.
The onus lies solely with the dog owner to prove the OP was negligent.
If someone intends to make a claim due to someone else's negligence then by definition negligence has to be shown or proved. It seems clear here that this is not the case.
0 -
I'm afraid thats where you are wrong.
The onus lies solely with the dog owner to prove the OP was negligent.
If someone intends to make a claim due to someone else's negligence then by definition negligence has to be shown or proved. It seems clear here that this is not the case.
Dog owner: "Your honour, the OP ran over my dog, she saw me walking my dog in the car park and didn't look where she was going."
OP: "Your honour, his dog was not under control."
DJ: "Defendant, can you prove the dog was not under control?"
OP: "No I can't."
DJ: "I therefore find in favour of the plaintiff."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 -
Dog owner: "Your honour, the OP ran over my dog, she saw me walking my dog in the car park and didn't look where she was going."
OP: "Your honour, his dog was not under control."
DJ: "Defendant, can you prove the dog was not under control?"
OP: "No I can't."
DJ: "I therefore find in favour of the plaintiff."
Your point is based on assumptions.
You assume the dog didn't run under the wheel.
How do you know the OP saw the dog & owner BEFORE the incident occurred?
As has already been pointed out it would take some doing to intentionally run over a dog with the rear wheel & not the front one
What would you have done in the same situation? Admitted full liability and offered to pay all the vets fees?0 -
Your point is based on assumptions.
So are yours.You assume the dog didn't run under the wheel.
But then, you are assuming that it didn't.How do you know the OP saw the dog & owner BEFORE the incident occurred?
The driver should have been paying more attention. I wonder what kind of conversation we would have been having if this was child.As has already been pointed out it would take some doing to intentionally run over a dog with the rear wheel & not the front one
Ever heard of reverse? Quite a common practice when one is parking.What would you have done in the same situation? Admitted full liability and offered to pay all the vets fees?
I would hope I would have been more careful in the first place.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 -
Judge Judy: Don't tell me what she saw. You don't know what she saw. So, you were with your dog, in a car park, where it is reasonable to expect to encounter moving vehicles, is it not? That doesn't strike me as a good place to walk your dog Sir?Dog owner: "Your honour, the OP ran over my dog, she saw me walking my dog in the car park and didn't look where she was going."
"Umm..."
Umm is not an answer...
---
I think the OP has done the right thing by passing it on to their insurer, because he/she no longer has to deal with the dog owner, and the insurer is very unlikely to pay up.0 -
Knew someone would say it! :rotfl:Proud of who, and what, I am. :female::male::cool:0 -
Can I ask the OP if this was on a council run recreation park? If so, where there any park regs/signs which deal with excersising dogs i.e. should they be on leads?PLEASE NOTEMy advice should be used as guidance only. You should always obtain face to face professional advice before taking any action.0
-
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.
the fact there was an old man in slippers and pj`s waving a lead around at the side of the road may have been a clue;), but i do agree with everyone else`s views, the op has nothing to worry about and i would not pay or expect my insurer to pay for this in a million years, the vets have put the dog on a antibiotic drip just in case:eek:, that would be like me walking into a hospital and asking to be put into a full body cast, just incase i fell down the stairs in 3 weks time:DTake every day as it comes!!0
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
- 244.9K 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