Dog ran into road and damage car

bugslet

Ditto harveybobbles, but we have 6:o

I can't see that the relationship of the person owning the dog and the dog walker is defined anywhere. If the dog walker was walking the dog professionally, then they should have their own public liability insurance.

Without a doubt damage to the car should be paid for. If it was a friend or relative then they too should pay, simply because they were in 'control' of the dog. Of course that opens a can of worms between the owner and the walker and claims of who said what, but that isn't really the drivers problem.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

photome wrote: »

Problem with that analagy is the owner may have told the walker not to use a lead

it would fall down to the walker to listen or not and nothing changes.

it would be the walkers decision ultimately to keep on a lead or let it off, so nothing would change in that respect still lies with the dog walkers negligance.

davidlizard

Similar thing happened to my brother in law a few years back. He hit a dog that was on a lead but it had pulled out of the owners hand and ran across the road.

There was nothing he could do to avoid hitting it. It was an accident - one of those things that happens in life. The dog owner certainly did not let her pet run loose on the road.

The dog was injured but recovered - it ran off and was not found for several hours.

The car had about £600 damage.

The dog owner had no specific pet insurance, but was covered under their personal liability bit of their home insurance which paid for the repairs fully.

bugslet

I don't have pet insurance for things like vet bills but wanted third party just in case.

I checked with the bods on the pet forum who suggested that I may be covered for third party on home insurance, but when I checked, I wasn't. It depends on the insurer.

It's certainly an avenue of enquiry though.

sun-n-moon

Maybe it's just hard luck all round. Things happen.

vaio

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

it would fall down to the walker to listen or not and nothing changes.

it would be the walkers decision ultimately to keep on a lead or let it off, so nothing would change in that respect still lies with the dog walkers negligance.

What about the concept of vicarious liability?

A stricter than usual liability on people for the actions of their servants/employees/agents.

Frankly on a £300 damage bill on a personal car the OP is likely better off just paying to fix it as any official claim will give him a non fault claim on his record which will need to be declared for the next 3/5 years and could well end up costing more than £300 in non fault loadings.

If he claims on his own insurance then the situation could be even worse...loss of excess, NCB and maybe a fault claim on record (fault in the insurance sense rather than normal sense).

If his insurers get the money off the owner/walker then excess & NCB are repaid and fault claim becomes non fault but how enthusiastic (in time & money terms) do you think an insurer is going to be chasing a £300 payment from a dog walker/owner particularly if there is some doubt about which is actually liable?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

vaio wrote: »

What about the concept of vicarious liability?

A stricter than usual liability on people for the actions of their servants/employees/agents.

Frankly on a £300 damage bill on a personal car the OP is likely better off just paying to fix it as any official claim will give him a non fault claim on his record which will need to be declared for the next 3/5 years and could well end up costing more than £300 in non fault loadings.

If he claims on his own insurance then the situation could be even worse...loss of excess, NCB and maybe a fault claim on record (fault in the insurance sense rather than normal sense). If his insurers get the money off the owner/walker then excess & NCB are repaid and fault claim becomes non fault but enthusiastic do you think an insurer is going to be chasing a £300 payment from a dog walker/owner?

i didnt say he should claim from any insurance. i'm talking about going through small claims! for arguement sake lets say he pays for the damage to be done, go through small claims, he could bring both owner and walker to court because there is a shared liability there, but ultimately it would be done to the walkers actions that this occured.

In ANY vehicle related accident, fault or not you obligated to inform your insurers and yes you premium will be loaded, but it would be the OP's colleagues choice to inform.

maninthestreet

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the person in charge of the dog at the time it ran onto the dual carriageway was under no legal obligation to supply their name and address, where they??

Hintza

maninthestreet wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the person in charge of the dog at the time it ran onto the dual carriageway was under no legal obligation to supply their name and address, where they??

I would have thought so.

Falling under reporting an accident rules and expectations, if they didn't want to then it would be incumbent upon them to inform the police.

Voyager2002

SteveJW wrote: »

Colleague driving home from work along a urban dual carriageway, a dog running loose ran into the road, he cannot avoid hitting it.
Dog is killed.
Person walking dog for a third party (dog owner) had let the dog of its lead, gave his details and details of the dogs owner.
Damage to car came to £300
Driver contacted owner who at the time was upset, so agreed to leave it for a couple of days, owner now will not answer phone calls and has not responded to letter.
Any advice, possible small claims court, all letters before action templates appear to be for claiming against companies

Thanks in anticipation

People who drive like this should be shot!

If the car was moving so quickly that the driver could not stop in time to avoid a fatal accident, then it was going dangerously fast.