Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • amtrakuk
    • By amtrakuk 13th Apr 19, 9:08 PM
    • 628Posts
    • 209Thanks
    amtrakuk
    Dog strike to car - insurance or private repairs?
    • #1
    • 13th Apr 19, 9:08 PM
    Dog strike to car - insurance or private repairs? 13th Apr 19 at 9:08 PM
    Last night I was unfortunate enough to have a dog chasing a fox from a dark playing field across a main road, even with an emergency stop letting the fox run off the dog slammed into the front offside bumper causing a dent, paint scratching, fog light to pop out and the windscreen washer bottle to pop. Apart form that the car us still drivable.


    I dialed 999 and got a CRN from the scene and the dog was taken by an emergency vet as the owner was nowhere to be seen.



    Phoning the vet this morning to see if they found any owner details I was told due to data protection they wont speak to me - even though I was involved. I phoned the police who advised me the insurance company should pursue.


    The insurance company have said it was my fault and are not willing to peruse. Is this a normal resolution?


    I would not normally be so concerned but with a 600 excess, losing a 1 years NCB and a major hike of over 300 to over 700 for next years insurance.


    Secondly I'm thinking of phoning up the insurance tomorrow to cancel the claim and get it repaired myself, as the excess and mark on my insurance file will be costly.


    Does this sound a reasonable plan?
Page 3
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 16th Apr 19, 1:20 PM
    • 23,768 Posts
    • 12,228 Thanks
    lisyloo
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/01/20/only-39-private-tenants-have-contents-insurance

    They may or may not, it's just my feeling that it's at least slightly better than a 50/50 proposition and I posted more as a reaction to the comment about people assuming they would automatically have it when I don't think anyone had actually said that.

    As you say, the most typical way to establish it would be via ones insurer following a claim (especially given the OPs difficulties in finding out who the owner was).
    Originally posted by davidwatts
    On reflection I agree itís something like 65%*95% having home insurance.
    65% being ownership level and 95* being those with insurance.

    On those odds they should theoretically pursue, but having been involved in a similar case before they seem to be reluctant to pursue non-motor especially if the claim is small.

    Itís a pain and the OP has my sympathy, but itís life for motorist.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 16th Apr 19, 1:25 PM
    • 23,768 Posts
    • 12,228 Thanks
    lisyloo
    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.
    Originally posted by unforeseen
    Parents are responsible for their children just as dog owners are responsible for their dogs.
    Itís 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 itís worse from the motorists point of view to hit a pedestrian (or indeed have a pedestrian hit them).
    • laidbackgjr
    • By laidbackgjr 16th Apr 19, 1:35 PM
    • 482 Posts
    • 1,203 Thanks
    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
    • By lisyloo 16th Apr 19, 2:13 PM
    • 23,768 Posts
    • 12,228 Thanks
    lisyloo
    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.
    Originally posted by laidbackgjr
    The owner wasnít present and the police/emergency vet can attest to that.
    How can the owner say the dog was under control if they werenít present or indeed comment on the speed?

    You have a valid point but in this case I canít 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
    • By uk1 16th Apr 19, 4:27 PM
    • 1,222 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    uk1
    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.
    Originally posted by laidbackgjr
    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
    • By sheramber 16th Apr 19, 5:05 PM
    • 6,189 Posts
    • 4,678 Thanks
    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
    • By uk1 16th Apr 19, 5:31 PM
    • 1,222 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    uk1
    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
    Originally posted by sheramber

    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
    • By chucknorris 22nd Apr 19, 6:51 PM
    • 9,959 Posts
    • 14,805 Thanks
    chucknorris
    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.
    Originally posted by davidwatts
    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).
    Last edited by chucknorris; 22-04-2019 at 6:53 PM.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

414Posts Today

5,453Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin