Family asked to pay for car damage after dog run over

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Family asked to pay for car damage after dog run over

A car insurer has asked a Canadian family to pay for repairing a broken bumper after their dog was struck by the vehicle and died. The traffic accident occurred while Jake, a 12-year-old yellow Labrador, was out for his daily stroll around a quiet neighborhood. Kim Flemming had let the dog out when she arrived home from work. Moments later, a man knocked on the door to say a car had run over Jake.

Two months later, the family received a bill in the mail for $1,648.95 from State Farm Insurance. The letter said Flemming had been found responsible for damage to the vehicle. "As such, we are looking to you for reimbursement," it reportedly stated.

A local bylaw requires pets to be on a leash when off the owner's property, but the Flemmings said Jake had become accustomed to roaming outside the family's home.

"We've lost a member of our family but we're supposed to pay for the damage to her bumper? That's just wrong," daughter Katherine Flemming said.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ce790ff71ff6bbbca9e18d3940bfe8d9.531&show_article=1

Should the dog owner have to pay for the damage to the vehicle which killed their dog?

[airdvr 210]

It's cruel but the owner is responsible. I'll bet the car owner wouldn't have pushed it but the insurance company will.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rehmwa 2]

It's sad to lose a pet. And that has zero to do with the fact that the dog's owners are responsible for the accident.

Laws shouldn't be changed based on how sorry we feel for the people involved.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Channman 2]

I wonder if this would apply if a child was run over.

Officer I was driving down the road and this child jump right out in front of me. Look at the damage that was done to my front end.

[billvon 2,998]

>I wonder if this would apply if a child was run over.

Yes, although the insurance company probably wouldn't try to collect. If you have a toddler and you let them run into the street, you are responsible for what happens next. And if the resulting accident kills someone - you are responsible for their deaths as well.

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

I wonder if this would apply if a child was run over.

Officer I was driving down the road and this child jump right out in front of me. Look at the damage that was done to my front end.

I don't believe there is a "child leash law".

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>I wonder if this would apply if a child was run over.

Yes, although the insurance company probably wouldn't try to collect. If you have a toddler and you let them run into the street, you are responsible for what happens next. And if the resulting accident kills someone - you are responsible for their deaths as well.

From personal experience, the driver is held resposible when hitting a minor, at least financially.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I wonder if this would apply if a child was run over.

Officer I was driving down the road and this child jump right out in front of me. Look at the damage that was done to my front end.

non sequitor

some disturbed city folks might FEEL like their pet is a family member or a child - but it doesn't change the fact that the animal is a PET


It would be a more appropriate analogy to ask if the owner was responsible for accidents resulting from leaving a piece of furniture in the road. Or if their bicycle or empty car rolled into the street......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

I wonder if this would apply if a child was run over.

Officer I was driving down the road and this child jump right out in front of me. Look at the damage that was done to my front end.

non sequitor

some disturbed city folks might FEEL like their pet is a family member or a child - but it doesn't change the fact that the animal is a PET


It would be a more appropriate analogy to ask if the owner was responsible for accidents resulting from leaving a piece of furniture in the road. Or if their bicycle or empty car rolled into the street......

Or maybe they just let their security alarm roam around all Willy Nilly!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

>I wonder if this would apply if a child was run over.

Yes, although the insurance company probably wouldn't try to collect. If you have a toddler and you let them run into the street, you are responsible for what happens next. And if the resulting accident kills someone - you are responsible for their deaths as well.

From personal experience, the driver is held resposible when hitting a minor, at least financially.

Even if it was completely unavoidable? (the minor and/or the parents' fault)

I came very close to hitting a teenage girl the other day. I was approaching an intersection with a green light, and suddenly she ran across the crosswalk without even looking at me (or the "don't walk" light she had, apparently). I had to hit the brakes to avoid hitting her, and she still didn't look at me. (Looked like she had earphones on, so she probably didn't hear me.) If I had actually hit her, I would not have felt responsible (though I would probably have felt traumatized if she was injured). And I would hope that the law would not find me responsible in that situation either, because that would be just plain wrong.

And as for the dog, yes, the owner should pay for the vehicle damage.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

some disturbed city folks might FEEL like their pet is a family member

Some of us pretty normal country folk do too. A couple of my dogs ARE family members-as such, I'm responsible for them. I'd pay for the car. And I'd more than likely shed a few tears burying my dog. (I wonder if that is covered under my homeowner's insurance?)

Just to bring Lucky up to speed..insurance is when I pay a company a little bit of money so that they will pay a large sum of money when the need arises. You can make these arrangements concerning personal property, weather protection for vacations, health, etc. If your employer considers you valuable enough, they will even provide all or a portion of your expenditures for health coverage.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Channman 2]

If I had actually hit her, I would not have felt responsible (though I would probably have felt traumatized if she was injured).

My post was primarly of a memory of a High School friend of mine that hit and killed an 8 year old boy that lived right next door to him. This young boy was playing catch with his mother in the front yard when he ran out chasing a base ball into the street and POW.

The death of the child was litigated in court for the maximum amount of the policy. But for my friend and the childs mother, things were never the same. It took more than a year to get him out of the house when he came home from school and more than three years to ever drive again.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

>I wonder if this would apply if a child was run over.

Yes, although the insurance company probably wouldn't try to collect. If you have a toddler and you let them run into the street, you are responsible for what happens next. And if the resulting accident kills someone - you are responsible for their deaths as well.

From personal experience, the driver is held resposible when hitting a minor, at least financially.

That's simply not true unless the driver is legally liable due to his own negligence.

The only slight exception to this is that in some states, the driver's insurance policy would be responsible for paying a portion of medical bills (if there are any) (but not "pain and suffering or non-medical economic loss) of anyone injured as the result of a motor vehicle accident (regardless of the patient's age, and regardless of whether the patient was in a vehicle or a pedestrian). This is usually known as the insurance policy's Personal Injury Protection, or "PIP". In those instances, that's a statutory responsibility that has nothing to do with negligence; it's a matter of state insurance law. In the hypothetical case of someone who incurs no medical bills because they're killed and pronounced dead at the scene, it wouldn't come into play.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

I wonder if this would apply if a child was run over.

Officer I was driving down the road and this child jump right out in front of me. Look at the damage that was done to my front end.

I don't believe there is a "child leash law".

Well, there are 52 state or state-like jurisdictions, aside from Federal jurisdiction, in the US. Each one has its own set of laws. While I doubt that any of them require leashes on kids per se (not that there's anything wrong with that), all US jurisdictions place a legal duty on parents and guardians to adequately supervise their children. In fact, if, for example, a child darts out of his front yard and is hit by a car, and the parents sue the driver, it is fairly common for the driver to defend against the parents, and frequently even file a counter-claim against the parents, on a theory of negligent supervision.

[Andy9o8 2]

Anyhow, I voted Yes, for the reasons already stated by others up-thread.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Should the dog owner have to pay for the damage to the vehicle which killed their dog?

I'm not sure. I'd want to know a lot more information, such as:

1. Was it day or night? Obviously it would be a lot harder to see a dog at night making the driver less responsible.

2. Did the driver live in the neighborhood? If so, the driver should know this dog and would be more responsible.

3. How fast was the driver driving and had the driver been drinking?

4. The dog was getting a bit old. Is it possible that this dog, good at keeping clear of cars in its prime, wandered into the road due to failing hearing/eyesight? If so it would make the driver less responsible.

My inclination if there isn't strong evidence either way then as a default the car owner pays. But if there is reliable testimony from witnesses that this dog was a problem in the neighborhood, it might sway my opinion.

I don't think the bylaw should enter into liability questions. There may be a law against jaywalking but that doesn't mean you can just run over jaywalkers whenever you feel like it.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Andy9o8 2]

[shropshire 0]

None of your points are relevant .. The dog should have been kept under control.. It wasn't and so the owners are responsible for the accident.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

3. How fast was the driver driving and had the driver been drinking?

This part I'll agree with. If the driver had been driving recklessly, then the driver should share the responsibility. But I assumed from the story, that that wasn't the case. (Not sure though.)

Quote

There may be a law against jaywalking but that doesn't mean you can just run over jaywalkers whenever you feel like it.

Well, I don't think you should be held responsible for accidentally hitting a jaywalker, assuming you were doing nothing wrong. That is quite a bit different from hitting a pedestrian who is crossing the street legally.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

None of your points are relevant .. The dog should have been kept under control.. It wasn't and so the owners are responsible for the accident.

Even if the driver was drunk?

My problem here is that usually in the case of an accident, if both sides have insurance, then both sides get a chance to present their story, and some kind of resolution is reached.

In this case State Farm has made a unilateral determination based on only one side of the story. The other party has to be given the right to tell their side of the story.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[shropshire 0]

We don't know if the driver was drunk or not but we do know that the dog was not on a lead and thus not under control.

If the driver had been charged for being drunk the case would been different - but that's just hypothetical.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[DARK 0]

of course they should pay i dont know how it is in the states but here in ireland if your animals(pets or farm animals) cause damage to someone elses property in anyway you are legally liable

[futuredivot 0]

one relevant question-Did the driver chase the dog through the dog owner's yard to hit it? If the answer is no, the dog owner is responsible. My dogs have gotten out in the past and if they damage anything-it's my problem.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[funjumper101 15]

In the state of California, damage to vehicle caused by roaming pets getting run over is the responsibility of the pet owner.

Harsh, if you are a pet owner, good if you are the driver.

[base283 0]

They must be running out of news. This an old story "Copyright AFP 2008,".

take care,
space