Dog ran into road and damage car

Sgt_Pepper_2

Hintza wrote: »

And!.................. if you read the first part it refers to the person in charge of the dog.

Are you being obtuse again?

Still no legal requirement for the dog walker to provide details.

vaio

Hintza wrote: »

And!.................. if you read the first part it refers to the person in charge of the dog.

Are you being obtuse again?

Don't know about obtuse, I think he's making the point that, unlike drivers involved in an accident, there is no duty on a dog owner/walker to either report an accident or give their name and address.

Hintza

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Still no legal requirement for the dog walker to provide details.

So what you are saying is that if I cause an accident through negligence I don't need to provide any details?

If so can you provide a link?

Sgt_Pepper_2

Hintza wrote: »

So what you are saying is that if I cause an accident through negligence I don't need to provide any details?

If so can you provide a link?

You've yet to provide anything to say you have to.

mattyprice4004

TrickyWicky wrote: »

So despite your colleague hitting the owners dog and killing it, I suppose you want the owner of the dog that your colleague killed to now pay for the damage to the vehicle right?

What would have happened if it was a fox? You and your colleague are sick. The dog owner has just lost a pet thanks to your colleagues driving and all you care about is getting the money from them for something your colleague did.

Thats just wrong and if t were me, your colleague would be receiving a moneyclaim for the loss of the animal.

Wow, I don't know where to start. You usually post decent stuff, too.

First of all, if it'd been a fox there would have been no comeback. This is different - someone's property has caused damage to another person's property, due to negligence.

I would absolutely love for the owner of a dog I hit to take me to court - I can't believe you actually think you'd make it anywhere near court.

So much fail.

Hintza

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

You've yet to provide anything to say you have to.

Mirvahedy v- Henley is the only bit of case law I can find quickly about animals and negligence.

The walkers act has cause damage it is therefore reasonable to expect them to give their name and address. I really don't see why you are arguing otherwise.

Tilt

If I remember correctly, the OP stated that particulars of both owner and walker were obtained so this arguing is pretty irrelevant.:doh:

vaio

Hintza wrote: »

Mirvahedy v- Henley is the only bit of case law I can find quickly about animals and negligence.

The walkers act has cause damage it is therefore reasonable to expect them to give their name and address. I really don't see why you are arguing otherwise.

I though you were arguing there was a duty on the dog owner/walker to give his details similar to that which exists for the driver concerned.

"Reasonable" doesn't come into it either it's a duty laid down by statute or it isn't. For the driver it is a duty, for the dog owner it isn't

Sgt_Pepper_2

Hintza wrote: »

Mirvahedy v- Henley is the only bit of case law I can find quickly about animals and negligence.

The walkers act has cause damage it is therefore reasonable to expect them to give their name and address. I really don't see why you are arguing otherwise.

Which has nothing to do with a dog.:rotfl:

Sgt_Pepper_2

vaio wrote: »

I though you were arguing there was a duty on the dog owner/walker to give his details similar to that which exists for the driver concerned.

"Reasonable" doesn't come into it either it's a duty laid down by statute or it isn't. For the driver it is a duty, for the dog owner it isn't

Which is why I said, why bother reporting it to the police.