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

marlot

Somehow I doubt the dog has been put on a drip. I just hope it really was taken to see a vet, and is OK.

Tilt

Outpost wrote: »

They should be on leads in carparks. People shouldn't need signs informing them of that.

True but if there are signs, then there is no argument.

peachyprice

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I wonder, have you ever thought how many directions a car can go in?

I wonder, did you read the OP?

Outpost

Tilt wrote: »

True but if there are signs, then there is no argument.

I don't think there is much of an argument to begin with when a dog is walking freely around off a lead in a carpark where vehicles are obviously going to be making parking manoeuvres - signs or no signs the owner is responsible for keeping the dog under control so that incidences like this don't occur.

On a side-note I don't personally buy into the idea that has become prevalent in the modern world that unless there is a sign present specifically forbidding or instructing something then a person is somehow absolved of responsibility should something occur - such as being absolved of responsibility for not keeping a dog on a lead in a carpark because there is no sign telling them to do so.

RuthnJasper

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.

Flyboy is right. A dog doesn't have to be on the lead to be under control. My colleagues and I look after, among other things, a conservation grazing flock of rare-breed sheep and, occasionally, one of them is savaged by a dog. This happened last week and the dog-owner was seen legging-it from the scene (with dog). Fortunately, the witness got the car reg. number.

ANYWAY - the dog either has to be on the lead or the owner has to be able to prove that it will respond (e.g. return to the owner's side) instantly on instruction for the mutt to be officially classed as "under control".

I know how bad the OP feels - I've got a lovely Staffie (Jasper), and whatever happened it certainly wasn't the dog's fault. It definitely sounds to me like the dog-owner is pulling a fast one. If in doubt ask (either you or through your insurance company) for a copy of the vets' bill.

Glad the dog wasn't hurt, wish it had a more responsible owner though... Good luck.xx

Green.Lander

agree with the above, i would be talking to the owner about your stress and see what he says

Paul_the_Painter

but really, please tell me how someone can claim to be in 100% control of an animal that is not on a lead/in a box etc. please enlighten me

Well, I regularly see dogs being walked on leads, which pull away from their owners when they lose their grip on the lead. That is hardly under control.

My Border Collie on the other hand loves chasing after her ball, and fetching it from the lakewith a singlemined determination, but when I launched the ball into the water the other day it went off in an unexpected direction. She would have got tangled up in some fishing lines, I shouted NO, she stopped and came back.

I walk her without a lead, she sits outside the shop and waits for me, we go down the pub and she waits outside for me to get my pint. She plays with the local kids down the pub (after asking permission - a glance towards the kids, then to me, then to the kids - a nod and a "go on then" from me) but comes back to check on me every few minutes. All without a lead. in fact I don't own a lead for her.

Just because your dog is not under control off the lead, does not mean that mine is.

Flyboy152

peachyprice wrote: »

I wonder, did you read the OP?

Yes I have and it doesn't mention which way the OP was going.

cyclonebri1

asbokid wrote: »

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..

This one might be pertinent...
or

or this one..

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.

Boy, was that one long toilet read:rotfl::rotfl:

cyclonebri1

Strider590 wrote: »

You do realise that if he tried to make a claim it'll cost you a darn site more than £100 in increased premiums?!?!

In fact just the act of telling your ins company WILL have an effect on next years premium!

It's the dogs fault and therefore his fault, you shouldn't have to pay a penny!

Can be the case but reread what the op said in post#8;)