Ran over a dog

born_again

Simby wrote: »

You hit the dog and want compensation....if this was a child you would be facing procesution

Have you considered paying the dogs vet bills due to the accident you caused by not paying attention

Did the OP mention compensation? NO.

Perhaps you need to check out the law around dogs and collisions with cars.

In the UK, dog owners are held responsible if their pet is run over by a car.

The law specifically states that any person who allows a dog to run onto a road off the lead is guilty of an offence.

The owner is also responsible for any veterinary costs and, potentially, for the cost of repairs to the vehicle involved.

And YES I am a dog owner..... If it happened to me, then I would be funding the repairs if it was MY dogs fault. That is why you have pet insurance.

AdrianC

born_again wrote: »

Did the OP mention compensation? NO.

Well...

Compensation for the damage caused to the car. Yes.
Compensation for intangible losses, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, inconvenience etc. No.

spadoosh

Anal retention is strong in this thread.

Arklight

In UK law, dogs are responsible for their actions and can be sued via their owners, but cats are exempt.

Car_54

born_again wrote: »

And YES I am a dog owner..... If it happened to me, then I would be funding the repairs if it was MY dogs fault. That is why you have pet insurance.

Wouldn't it be your fault, rather than the dog's?

Undervalued

Arklight wrote: »

In UK law, dogs are responsible for their actions and can be sued via their owners, but cats are exempt.

Not quite!

The dog is not "responsible for its actions" and you do not sue the dog, even "via their owner"! The owner has a legal duty to keep the dog under control and can be held responsible for any damage caused by the dog. So you sue the owner for not preventing the damage caused by the dog.

Yes, a cat is a wild animal in law, as are most other animals apart from horses, even if they are kept as pets.

Although there are (quite rightly) criminal offences regarding cruelty to animals, in all other respects pets are simply property. So if you kill someones pet, providing you do it either accidentally or humanly, your maximum liability is normally only its sale value.

What I am less clear about is if you are at fault and injury somebody's dog accidentally and the owner opts for incredibly expensive "super vet" type treatment, whether you are liable for the full cost or only for the value of the (uninjured) animal? Is that treated a bit like very expensive and uneconomic repairs to a cherished car vs its write off value?

Aylesbury_Duck

flatulantyounggoat wrote: »

So I guess even if I go the insurance route, the 3rd party pays up and it's all settled in a non-fault manner I'm still going to be deemed by insurance companies as higher risk. Even though there was nothing I could do and I was well below the speed limit? What a fraud.

Yes, that's how insurance works. If you don't like it and think it's fraudulent, don't drive a car.