Dog strike to car - insurance or private repairs?

lisyloo

unforeseen wrote: »

If you changed 'dog' to 'child' then what you wrote could also apply. In fact it would be worse because road users are more likely to attempt avoiding action with possible fatal results to 3rd parties if it was a child.

Parents are responsible for their children just as dog owners are responsible for their dogs.
It’s not quite so clear cut as your not expected to keep children on a lead.

Insurers are even MORE risk averse when it come to pursuing pedestrians (I have had experience) due to the risk of a counter claim for personal injury, so it’s worse from the motorists point of view to hit a pedestrian (or indeed have a pedestrian hit them).

laidbackgjr

The other big issue you are all missing is evidence. Start to pursue the claim and what happens when the dog owner says that the driver was speeding and hit their dog whilst they were crossing the road and the dog owner then claims damages from the driver. Without any independent witnesses or paying for expensive forensic evidence it would be difficult to prove one way or another.

lisyloo

laidbackgjr wrote: »

The other big issue you are all missing is evidence. Start to pursue the claim and what happens when the dog owner says that the driver was speeding and hit their dog whilst they were crossing the road and the dog owner then claims damages from the driver. Without any independent witnesses or paying for expensive forensic evidence it would be difficult to prove one way or another.

The owner wasn’t present and the police/emergency vet can attest to that.
How can the owner say the dog was under control if they weren’t present or indeed comment on the speed?

You have a valid point but in this case I can’t see how the owner can claim the dog was under control. It was clearly not on a lead and no one was there to control it and there IS evidence of that I.e. the vet that turned up can say there was no lead and no human present.

uk1

laidbackgjr wrote: »

The other big issue you are all missing is evidence. Start to pursue the claim and what happens when the dog owner says that the driver was speeding and hit their dog whilst they were crossing the road and the dog owner then claims damages from the driver. Without any independent witnesses or paying for expensive forensic evidence it would be difficult to prove one way or another.

I think you have been watching too much TV!

These cases are not heard in criminal courts where guilt has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" but are generally heard in lower civil courts by a district jduge and most of the evidence is verbal evidence backed by a degree of common sense. A judge listens to both parties and decides "on the balance of probabilities" which side's account he believes more. Evidence is believed or not as the judge using his/her experience and "judgement". Judges have quite a number of "interesting tools" to test the credibility of witnesses and help them decide.

In most cases where dog's run out onto a road the speed of the car is completely immaterial because it is common sense that it is the dog being on the road out of control of the owner that has caused the dogs injury or death and damageto a car and if it had been under control and not been there then the incident would not have occurred.

sheramber

https://www.bluecross.org.uk/pet-advice/laws-all-dog-owners-need-know

If your dog injures someone on the road

Claims can be brought against dog owners who are proven liable if their dog causes a road incident that causes injury, illness or death.

We strongly recommend that dog owners take out third party liability insurance to protect against any costs or compensation you may need to pay if your dog does cause an accident.

Legal costs are expensive and can run into tens of thousands of pounds without insurance.

Law: Animals Act 1971, section 2

uk1

sheramber wrote: »

https://www.bluecross.org.uk/pet-advice/laws-all-dog-owners-need-know

If your dog injures someone on the road

Claims can be brought against dog owners who are proven liable if their dog causes a road incident that causes injury, illness or death.

We strongly recommend that dog owners take out third party liability insurance to protect against any costs or compensation you may need to pay if your dog does cause an accident.

Legal costs are expensive and can run into tens of thousands of pounds without insurance.

Law: Animals Act 1971, section 2

Many dog owners are blissfully unaware of the degree of responsibility and liability they have with respect to their dog control when simply out walking.

In the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 a dog is considered out of control simply if another person feels that they are in danger from it. No other proof is required other than that of "reasonableness". So an owner of a dog running around and barking and causing anxiety to other citizens may well be breaking the law. The fine is unlimited and there is also a provision of upto six months in prison - or even up to 14 years if their dog kills someone.

chucknorris

davidwatts wrote: »

I think people were just suggesting, correctly, that it was more likely than not that the dog owner would have insurance. Overall, most households have contents insurance that would provide relevant 3rd party liability. (I remember reading something that said a substantial majority of homeowners have contents insurance though it does dip below 50% for certain types of tenant.) Also, these days it is increasingly common for there to be a degree of liability cover under Pet policies as well.

Not guaranteed, but certainly a strong possibility.

Most of my life I have not had home (property) insurance, to me it doesn't represent value, the cost of the premium is higher than the possibility of claiming (because on top of the actual risk you are also paying for overheads and profit of both the broker and the underwriter). I do however have specific third party liability (not general) insurance for my dog. Because the potential cost could wipe me out if my dog caused a massively expensive accident, but property insurance would unlikely to worse than the cost of rebuilding my home (at worst also my neighbours home too, if I was proved to be negligent).