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

BlueFox

spaceman5 wrote: »

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;)

The fact that he was there, doesn't mean that the OP knew that his dog was going to run under the rear wheel of the car!

The whole point to proving negligence, certainly from an insurance point of view, is whether or not the driver could have taken any action to have avoided the incident. Did she know the dog was anywhere near the rear of her car? Only the OP can say for sure.

Whether you like it or not the dog owner has to take responsibility for his dog's actions, whether he is standing 2 feet away in a car park or if it escapes from his garden without his knowledge & causes some damage elsewhere - the responsibility lies with the owner.

peachyprice

dinksmum wrote: »

I drove down the usual road I go down towards a private car park. . I was doing slightly more than 10MPH into the car park when my back wheel went over something.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

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

Did OP say 'I was reversing down the road towards the car park, I was doing slightly over 10MPh when I reversed into the car park'? That would have been some impressive reversing

I think it's pretty obvious from her OP that she was going forward, but you carry on being pedantic.

jackj

don't pay for this, you are not responsible for this

Flyboy152

peachyprice wrote: »

Did OP say 'I was reversing down the road towards the car park, I was doing slightly over 10MPh when I reversed into the car park'? That would have been some impressive reversing

I think it's pretty obvious from her OP that she was going forward, but you carry on being pedantic.

It doesn't say she was going forward either. However, that was not the point of the remark, was it?

George_Michael

Why is it that on internet forums, some people feel the need to constantly argue their point even when it is obvious to everyone else that they are either misinformed, or simply mistaken?

Why can't some people just admit that they are wrong?

Outpost

George_Michael wrote: »

Why is it that on internet forums, some people feel the need to constantly argue their point even when it is obvious to everyone else that they are either misinformed, or simply mistaken?

Why can't some people just admit that they are wrong?

Like anyone is going to listen to the opinion of someone called 'George Michael' on the subject of driving into things with cars!

anotheralias

Flyboy152 wrote: »

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

So you need the OP to specifically state they were not reversing at 10MPH INTO a car park?

The OP didn't mention they weren't driving blindfolded; or with their hands behind their back; or that they weren't driving a steamroller. Do you need the OP to tell you they weren't doing those things to?

Outpost

I like how we've all been discussing this for nearly three days without any further input from the OP.

George_Michael

Like anyone is going to listen to the opinion of someone called 'George Michael' on the subject of driving into things with cars!

That's a bit below the belt.
And we all know how I enjoy a bit of what's below the belt!

asbokid

Outpost wrote: »

I like how we've all been discussing this for nearly three days without any further input from the OP.

We won't be hearing from the OP again: the staffie got his revenge.