Damaged Car Due to Hitting Dog on public road

Lvictoria76 on 15/05/2016 - 20:26
Last edited 15/05/2016 - 20:31 by 1 other user

Hi All,

I would really appreciate some advice. Unfortunately a few weeks ago I hit a dog while driving to the shops(it was dark and he ran out in front of me) Thankfully the dog survived after some major vet work. My car has approximately $2000 damage to front end. I understand the responsibility falls on the owner for the damaged caused however I am not having much luck and he is not answering my calls. Apparently a housemate left a gate open leading to the dog being at large. The owner is blaming the flat mate….. I want to avoid going through my own car insurance do to my rating potentially dropping and premium increasing. (this happened to me a couple of years ago after my car was "keyed"). I am considering seeking legal advice. Has anyone else been in this position or offer any advice?

Many thanks

Vicki

Automotive

Comments

        • ubcool on 18/05/2016 - 18:26

          [@McFly](/comment/3702944/ and what if it was his dog you hit and not him ?

        • ubcool on 18/05/2016 - 18:29
          -2

          @knk: im pretty sure people suing dog owners after smashing them with their cars are in the minority

        • knk on 18/05/2016 - 19:14
          +1

          @ubcool:

          True, however it still involves on the insurance company paying for damage the owner didn't cause. Something which isn't limited to people hitting dogs.

      • ttc72 on 18/05/2016 - 17:06

        How nice of you to offer to pay for her insurance excess :)

  • subywagon on 15/05/2016 - 23:38
    +3

    Bikies…

  • paul_5666 on 16/05/2016 - 07:40
    +7

    Playing devils advocate here: how is this situation different to you hitting a loose young child?

    • JediJan on 16/05/2016 - 16:00
      +5

      Very different! You ring the Police, Ambulance etc. A report has to be made by the Police.

      I am amazed that people can bring this up. What if these people who insist on making this comparison spare a little time on the incidence of people swerving to avoid hitting a dog (or cat) only to end up injuring people. How about a little empathy for the driver and her passengers, who, no fault of their own, have suffered due to an irresponsible pet owner?

      • paul_5666 on 16/05/2016 - 16:11
        -3

        Obviously you're making a value judgement on which life is more important and sure, the law supports your position.
        The counter argument is that it could have easily been a child in this situation. Personally, it being a dog doesn't change the liability in my eyes.
        Also there was no swerving attempted so null point.

        • JediJan on 16/05/2016 - 22:15
          +8

          "Value judgement" if you like, but I would like to hear you put your "counter argument" to a member of the Police force.

          Perhaps you should put yourself in the same situation as this poor driver, and then consider the implications of her following a natural instinct by swerving or hard braking, which could have potentially injured others.

          It is well and good you having an opinion after the fact, but very cruel to attempt putting any blame on the driver.

          I have been a passenger in a vehicle which injured a dog once, and no one ever came up with your suggestion of what if … The dog owner should not have endangered others by letting his dog run onto a road.

          I have also known of another that hit a toddler that had wandered behind a reversing truck on a road at 6am. I have also met a couple whose only son swerved his bike in front of a passing car and he died as a result. No blame was assigned to any of these drivers, but these drivers all suffered as a result. Where is your empathy? Only reserved for the poor dog.

        • No ONE on 17/05/2016 - 10:08
          -1

          Child and dog are two different species. Have you seen kangaroos jumping out of nowhere on vehicles in the bush at dark. Animals run fast and there is little time to see them, where as child they don't just run in the dark. Child can be aleast spotted on the road.

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 12:33

          @Oz Bargain 3:
          Very true; the reason why we do not drive to posted limit, or sunrise/sunset hours, to minimise our risk in known wildlife areas.

          Unfortunately I know of an incident a toddler was killed by a reversing truck (years ago), when child managed to escape his home in the early hours of the morning. Although driver was not charged, not af fault, he was devastated, as you can imagine. Very tragic circumstances for all concerned.

        • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 13:34
          +3

          @Oz Bargain 3: are you sure? It's currently getting dark here about 6pm and I wouldn't be surprised if there are dozens of kids that are not suitably supervised to prevent them from exiting a property and running around in the dark. Kids do silly things all the time, who's to say there isn't a kid chasing the dog back home again? Dog runs across in front of you, takes your focus and then you don't see a kid? Unlikely but certainly possible.

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 13:49

          @Euphemistic: Why dogs are supposed to be on a leash in public (properly restrained) or fenced/locked in, whereby they cannot escape. I have been a dog owner too and know what kinds of risks they pose to others. They are faster than humans, more erratic with shorter attention spans (usually).

          The message has to be stated time and again to pet owners that they must ensure their pets are kept out of harms way, not only for the pets sake.

      • fefris on 18/05/2016 - 12:48

        You have no evidence the driver is responsible etc. No blood tests, no speed tests etc. She could have been stoned and speeding. Unless the police were involved there is zero evidence the op is a responsible driver

    • Devils Advocate on 16/05/2016 - 23:11
      +15

      That's my job mate

    • knk on 18/05/2016 - 12:12

      I'm fairly sure I remember a story on the news quite a while back about an insurance company sending the bill for damage to a vehicle to the parents of a deceased child after a car accident.

      That would be the last thing you wanted to think about.

    • frewer on 19/05/2016 - 04:35

      Playing devils advocate here: how is this situation different to you hitting a loose young child?

      I would like to see the thinking process of this … Comparing an animal to a human being, Im not sure if paul understand what does it means to be human

      • paul_5666 on 19/05/2016 - 14:42

        Everyone is getting hung up on this. I already said that it is a value judgement, which I agree with and is duly recognised by the law. I'm a medic so please, I recognise the value of human life.
        My point is that children run around and can be hit by cars. The question was merely a hypothetical that could have been reality.
        I have nothing further to add but to say, drive to conditions and do your best not to hit things you don't expect to be on the road.

    • syousef on 19/05/2016 - 12:36
      +1

      Playing devils advocate here: how is this situation different to you hitting a loose young child?

      A young child's parents can be charged with neglect/endangerment if the child is "loose".

      An adult can be directly charged for causing an accident if they weren't paying attention.

  • sparkles on 16/05/2016 - 08:15
    +12

    I'm interested in the difference between this and say, a toddler running out and getting hit by a car. Who is responsible then? I know farm animals like cows are in theory covered by public liability insurance (provided the owner has it) but who is ultimately responsible for a runaway dog?

    Personally, I'd just claim on my insurance and be grateful the dog survived. It's crap, but it's life. If you policy goes up, shop around, which most of us should be doing anyway, but probably don't.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2016 - 09:17
      +3

      Household insurance usually covers that type of accident.

    • JediJan on 16/05/2016 - 15:35

      Quite different! And I think unfair and cruel to even state this. Road law is there for a reason. The onus is on owners of ALL animals to keep them from wandering onto public roads or private properties. Have you never heard of incidents of car drivers swerving their vehicles to avoid hitting an animal to end up causing greater injury to pedestrians and/or passengers. Why we are (and I assume you also) are told never to brake hurriedly or swerve to avoid hitting an animal on the road. One has to avoid their instincts in these situations; a pity you have shown no regard for the driver's wellbeing.

      • Euphemistic on 16/05/2016 - 22:05
        +2

        You are right, you are told not to swerve to avoid an animal. But you are missing the point, that you are also responsible to try not to hit too, just becuase you shouldn't swerve don't give you a licence to run down anything in your path.

        By the way braking to the limit is recommended becuase there is a good chance you can stop and the vehicles following are supposed to be ready for that (but rarely are). swerving is bad because it leads to loss of control which makes the situation worse.

        And before you ask I have, on a dark section of 100km/h highway had to avoid a roo in the middle of the road. I successfully braked hurriedly and unfortunately woke my sleeping family who were all safely seat belted in and got to test the seatbelts. I didn't swerve at high speed and roll the car or hit a tree. I had seen a roo a few moments before and slowed from the posted limit to drive to the conditions.

        • resisting the urge on 16/05/2016 - 23:08
          +4

          "I had seen a roo a few moments before and slowed from the posted limit to drive to the conditions."

          Which is what every driver needs to know because where there is one roo, there are always more!

          … and of course, this also applies to kids and other animals.

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 00:24

          I have been fortunate not to hit a kangaroo too, and have been known to get out of a car to try to get one off a road. Perhaps you blame drivers when kangaroos have flown out of the scrub giving drivers no warning at all; it happens. No one hits an animal (wildlife included) without making some attempt to avoid it.

          I wouldn't say my ability was any better than the next, but I avoid driving at sunrise/sunset, and lowering my speed in certain areas. Most do not. I have made several trips up and down almost the full length of the east coast of Australia without incident. I put this down to sheer luck and nothing else.

          You say you slowed from the posted limit. Perhaps your family would not have been woken if you were driving at a reduced speed to begin with.

        • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 07:26
          +2

          @JediJan: "You say you slowed from the posted limit. Perhaps your family would not have been woken if you were driving at a reduced speed to begin with."

          I had slowed to the conditions well before seeing that particular roo. It was because I had slowed that I was able to stop safely.

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 14:07

          @Euphemistic: I misunderstood your meaning then (thought you meant you slowed only after seeing it), and apologise for this.

          If only more drivers were as considerate and watchful as you. Doesn't make any difference what speed you are doing when one flies out of almost nowhere though. I have been startled by a mob of them while parked at Buchan caves; came from nowhere and flew across the front of my car. Have you ever noticed they would never do that to the rear end of a vehicle?

          This applies to driving in known (endangered) cassowary habitats too; speed limits in those areas are usually 80kmh (many don't seem to notice), but these birds are almost invisible when they crash out of the forest at a frightening speed. I saw one do this in an apparent attempt to attack a car I was following at about 70kmh. If I had not witnessed this apparent attack by the cassowary I may have doubted the driver. He braked and swerved and somehow managed to stop, but it was a very close thing.

        • lonewolf on 17/05/2016 - 14:34

          @JediJan:

          judging by all your comments on here, you seem to have strong issues against animals… I think its quite hard to say that dogs are erratic but children / kids arent. I see many kids on skateboards or those scooter type devices on the roads or back and forth crossing roads and driveways…Not a care in the world and drivers have to quickly stop as the kids dont care.

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 17:00
          +1

          @lonewolf: To the contrary; I don't have any strong issues against animals, only those irresponsible owners.

          To clarify further; I have owned a dog, guinea pigs and birds in the past.

          I have donated my time (and money) to several animal welfare groups, including those that give their free time to help injured domestic and wildlife after the onset of bushfires. I have also spent my free time collecting cassowary fruit for sick and injured cassowaries, because of car accidents and loss of habitat.

          I never said that children are not erratic, but perhaps what i should have said is they are generally easier to spot than a hound or cat. We all have to keep our focus more carefully on the roads and lookout for children (of all shapes and sizes). Not much we can really do about those children behaving recklessly I would think, but the Law attempts to remove at least one road hazard; domestic animals and livestock. The penalties for roaming domestic animals are there for very good reason (the poster's example); to deter would be offending owners. For the most part it has worked.

          Does anyone want 3 adult cats their owners obviously don't care enough about? Unsure if desexed or not or quite possibly carrying the toxoplasmosis virus etc. Our only option would be to ring the Council to have them caught and sent to the pound.

        • knk on 18/05/2016 - 12:51
          +1

          They're damn stupid creatures aren't they. I've come to a complete stop and had to flash my high beams and honk my horn before I could get one to move.

        • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 10:11

          @knk: You are fortunate indeed if that worked ;o). I have actually got out of a car in an attempt to chase one stubborn kangaroo off the road. Like, he gave me that look that says "What is your problem?" Another day, another place and time, sitting quietly having a rest in a quiet park and a mob of them come crashing out of the bush and fly over the bonnet of my car. Very disturbing!

        • knk on 20/05/2016 - 12:08
          +1

          @JediJan:

          haha yeah I'm so lucky I saw him a mile away just standing in the middle of the road.

        • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 17:54

          @knk: Must have been that same old crazy Skippy hey!

        • resisting the urge on 21/05/2016 - 20:51

          @zerovelocity: I slow every time I see a roo on the roadway. Saves me and others from an accident 1 in every 15 times from the number of roos I see progressing s-l-o-w-l-y.

          Given that roos hide really effectively (try finding some in the twilight in a paddock where you know they are, it is hardly easy). So the risk probably works out less than 1:5.

          A friend of mine's brother hit a roo in his car. He gave it away afterwards, it was totalled. If risk of impact when one is visible is 1:5 or 1:30, accepting odds like that on a serious collision in a remote location caused by a random wild animal's panic/misconception or your own speed is nothing to do with your DNA and all to do with your IQ!

          And yes, my mate's bro isn't exactly a deep thinker.

  • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2016 - 08:37
    +6

    I'm in NSW so the laws probably aren't the same here but this is my opinion.

    It would be extremely hard in nsw legally to force the other person to pay without proving that the owner negligently didn't constrain the dog in their yard causing the accident. For starters it would have been an accident from what you described, the dog was essentially lost at the time.

    I can see the owner of the dog trying on something like 'it's a residential neighbourhood and if visibly was poor (aka nighttime) you should have been driving slower to the conditions of the road, what if it was a small child running on the road?'. I'm not having a stab at you, just trying to show you what the other person could potentially throw at you. I've hit my fair share of things, I love tapped a cyclist about a year ago and I'm still getting over it (completely my fault though), he was okay and I replaced his bike.

    My advice would be to call either your insurer or there is a free legal aid phone number you can call.

    Just something else I found that might interest:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/bossy/index.php/news/comments/i_ran…

    • No ONE on 17/05/2016 - 10:13

      Given the dog survived, it can be estatimated that driver was driving 40-50 kms/h. If the speed was >60 kms/h the dog might have died.

      • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 13:39
        -1

        Sometimes the slower you drive the more fatal the injury can be. Just saying; it could have been a sutuation where a dog may have been deflected rather than squashed.

        As awful as that may sound, I have ignorant neighbours that allow their cats (3) to wander at will, day and night. These cats are a nuisance (killing native birds and crapping in our garden), and very slow to get out of the way in our driveway. We don't want squashed cats in our driveway either but their owners obviously don't care enough about them.

      • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 14:52
        +1

        There are so many factors involved determining injury type and severity that you couldn't possibly estimate the drivers speed from solely relying on the information that the dog wasn't killed. Elsewhere here is says the driver had just exited a roundabout in a 60km/h zone, that would help in determining the speed, outside that fact it is nigh on impossible to determine.

        • syousef on 19/05/2016 - 12:43

          You can't determine it with certainty but you can calculate the chances of being injured for a given speed based on historical data. And the data does show a very clearly chances of getting squished increase with speed. It's basic physics. e = 0.5mv^2 and p = m*v

        • Euphemistic on 19/05/2016 - 13:26

          @syousef: of course that is true. But you can't determine speed from the sketchy info provided.

  • bunkymag on 16/05/2016 - 10:00
    +3

    I think your number one option is to call your insurer and take it through them. I had a different but similar experience with a hit and run driver a couple years back and while I had to pay the excess initially, they were able to recover the costs and reimburse me.

    Keep in mind insurance is a highly competitive game and you can use this to your advantage. So if your current insurer turns out not to have your back on this (after 20 years?) you can threaten to leave (politely!) and/or call their competitors with the story and see what they can quote you.

    Worst case scenario it may not help with this particular claim. But if you haven't changed provider in a long time chances are you could be getting your premiums substantially cheaper elsewhere anyway .. so it may work out better for you in the long run.

    My 2c!

    • ankor on 17/05/2016 - 21:22

      Yup. Kick up a stink and escalate escalate escalate. If you've been with them 20 years, they should look after you.

  • Euphemistic on 16/05/2016 - 10:25
    -2

    What if it was a kid that ran out in front of you, would you be chasing the parents?

    I'm not sure how the dog owner is liable, there could be an argument you are responsible for hitting the dog and therefore the vet bills too.

    • JediJan on 16/05/2016 - 15:47
      +1

      Nonsense; unfair to bring this up. That is a Police matter to then determine if driver was at all at fault when they write up their report). Perhaps you should read your insurance policies.

      My brother rode his new bike around one corner and straight into the back of a parked car (children do all matter of dangerous things). The car owner brought him home and then kindly transported him to hospital (broken nose and lacerations). Car was damaged too; my father contacted him and insisted on paying for the damages. Yes, the driver was reluctant to accept, but in this country at least, you are responsible for the damages your child causes.

      No way at all the driver could be liable for the dog!

      • Euphemistic on 16/05/2016 - 21:53
        +2

        It is not at all nonsense to bring that up. Drivers have a responsibility to drive to the conditions and not hit stuff. Now, we all know that drivers aren't infallible and sometimes (a little too often to be honest) there are incidents where drivers hit stuff. It is up to the insurance company to determine if they will chase the dog owner or not, and I suspect they wouldn't. just as they wouldn't chase a parent of a child hit. Would you try and claim against the national parks department if a roo jumped out in front of you?

        your example of hitting a parked car is completely different, there was no driver, the person responsible for the damage was your brother regardless of his injuries. I have also been told by my insurance company that they couldn't help me when I hit an illegally parked trailer on my motorbike, I was responsible for not looking forward enough.

        • macrocephalic on 17/05/2016 - 17:11
          +5

          Drivers have a responsibility to drive to conditions, that means not hitting things which are on the road, and not hitting things which you could likely expect to be on the road. A dog running out in front of the vehicle is neither of those things.

        • McFly on 18/05/2016 - 00:24
          +1

          It is not at all nonsense to bring that up.

          Yes it is.

          Drivers have a responsibility to drive to the conditions and not hit stuff.

          Including (small) animals jumping out from nowhere in front of the car (at night?!)
          Then the maximum speed on all roads needs to be about 10kph!

          Now, we all know that drivers aren't infallible and sometimes (a little too often to be honest) there are incidents where drivers hit stuff.

          Now, we all know that drivers aren't infallible and sometimes (a little too often to be honest) there are incidents where unforeseen and crazy things can happen (eg. a fence getting blown over by the wind onto a road.)
          FTFY

          It is up to the insurance company to determine if they will chase the dog owner or not

          Of course. And it's up to the insured party to sue the insurance company if they feel they are being unfairly treated.

          and I suspect they wouldn't

          I would hope they would.

          they wouldn't chase a parent of a child hit

          Assuming it wasn't the drivers fault, the only reasons they wouldn't do that (although for some reason you seem to think all damage is caused by drivers) is because it would be cruel, and more importantly (for the insurance company,) it would be very bad publicity.

          your example of hitting a parked car is completely different

          Better different than nonsensical. At least this example does go to show that JediJan's father has a good character - hopefully the dog owner and/or their housemate does too.

        • Euphemistic on 18/05/2016 - 06:59

          @McFly: more of the 'entitled driver' mentality crap that makes our roads more dangerous. Everybody thinks that the roads are there to be driven at the speed limit and no obstructions will be encountered. The more we have of this the more people will drive along and not pay attention, after all 'it was only an accident'

          We need to change our rules to strict liability that is in place in other parts of the world. First assume the driver is responsible, then if not, it is up to the driver to prove they could not avoid the incident.

          Cars are dangerous, but so many drivers just don't get it with their heads buried in their crotch texting, driving under the influence, using phones etc. most of the time 'I didn't see it' is solely down to the driver not driving to conditions.

        • McFly on 18/05/2016 - 09:08
          +2

          @Euphemistic:

          Cars are dangerous, but so many drivers just don't get it with their heads buried in their crotch texting, driving under the influence, using phones etc.

          True - the only thing you've said that bears any resemblance to reality.

        • knk on 18/05/2016 - 15:03
          +3

          @macrocephalic:

          I've hit a dog when someone knowingly let their 2 dogs run and chase eachother in the frontyard. They were just playing and one ran out in front of the other. I was under the limit through a residential street, there was no time to stop as I was coming around a slight bend and couldn't see them.

          Luckily there was no damage to my car, he kind of hit the black trim on the bottom of the front bumper and then must have hit something else underneath the car. The dog didn't die, at least not while I was there but I'm pretty sure it's leg was broken (it was hopping around).

          When the owners heard the dog yelping they ran outside and almost lost their shit at me saying things like oh my god how could you hit our dog etc, to which I had to shut them up and sternly inform them their dogs shouldn't be running across the road. People need to take some bloody responsibility…I handed them their dog and left but not before checking my car for damage lol.

    • resisting the urge on 16/05/2016 - 23:20
      +1

      I doubt there are many cases that show parents having to accept an onus to teach their children to have any road rules.

      And not all parents do. There are actually many that don't…

      But imagine being the driver 'at fault' when you have no time to do anything other than see some dog/roo/kid take explode across your bonnet.

      How the hell can you prove it wasn't your fault?
      How could you ever let yourself off feeling it was?

      And how could you prove some kid had no road-sense or simply had a momentary lapse of road-sense?

      As a driver, all you can do is be careful. There is very little else between you and a life of bankruptcy, nightmares and/or guilt and other miseries, regardless of what your magistrate might say. It's all risk and luck, some will loose the driving game whether the pedestrian and/or others die due to the consequences of their own genes' evolutionary path, or another road-user's lapses/inadequacies.

      • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 07:31
        +1

        This. Completely.

    • chumlee on 17/05/2016 - 07:25
      +3

      It wasn't a kid it was a dog so we only need to discuss it in this context.

  • WD TV andSOUND on 16/05/2016 - 11:34

    I would have thought that most everyone's insurance was """no fault""" excess. If you are not at fault you don't pay a cent!!!!
    You leave it in the hands of your insurance company after giving the names of the third party, that can be covered under their House and public liability.
    With no fault to you, your insurance company should be able to recover costs from the third party's insurance company……

    • the-mal on 16/05/2016 - 12:25
      +1

      You won't pay an excess if there is another identified "at fault" party, but it can and will change your risk rating which could affect your future premiums.

  • minniethemoocher on 16/05/2016 - 13:02
    +3

    If you claim on your insurance you may have to pay the excess upfront and you may get it back later. This means the insurance will chase other party for you. As others have stated the other party is most likely covered by his household insurance for this event. If he is ignoring you this is the best option in my opinion. Your insurance company can be quite persuasive and may even take legal action against him to recover the money. I have had 2 cases of at fault parties ignoring me who came around once insurance was involved.

    • HeWhoKnows on 16/05/2016 - 13:38
      -8

      Mate. Wake up. The driver is ALWAYS responsible! The poster has already admitted guilt. There will be no chasing the other party.

      • minniethemoocher on 16/05/2016 - 14:17
        +2

        Your telling the wrong person MATE. If you believe that tell the OP. The OP asked what to do given she was holding the dog owner responsible and they weren't paying for her repairs. She didn't ask for advice who was at fault, she expressly believes they are at fault. If the insurance agrees that they are at fault, the insurance company will pursue the other party and if she is successful she will get her excess back. In our case a kid hit our car with his bike and damaged it. The parents didn't want a bar of it. We went through our insurance, the insurance said it will be difficult to chase this up as the kid is a minor, but once we did the parents used their household insurance and paid up.

      • victoria76 on 16/05/2016 - 20:00
        +1

        Guilt…. Yes l did hit the dog…..however circumstances were beyond my control……… it was dark, the dog ran out from the side into my path. The damage is on the front passenger side. I didn't see the dog at all.

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 00:42
          +3

          There is no guilt on your part. The owner of the dog is just being difficult; he knows he is responsible. Best leave it with your insurance company to deal with it. Owner's problem if he wishes to sue his housemate.

        • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 07:29
          -1

          @JediJan: disagree. Yes, the driver should feel some guilt. It was probably outside his control, but the dog owner shouldn't be held responsible.

        • wtfnodeal on 17/05/2016 - 08:17
          +2

          @Euphemistic: thanks for that comment. that will save me hours of time if i let my dogs run around in my neighbourhood and hope they will come home themselves a few hours later.

        • tomleonhart on 17/05/2016 - 08:47
          -1

          @wtfnodeal: Also remember if a car hits your dog when you let it run wild, it's the driver's fault too.

        • minniethemoocher on 17/05/2016 - 10:42
          +2

          Actually there is a whole thread on Whirlpool regarding this situation, turns out in similar circumstances the dogs owner was made to pay for the car damage and insurance successfully pursued them to make them pay up.

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 12:42

          @Euphemistic:
          Disagree. The dog owner SHOULD be held responsible, or there would be even more dogs running free night and day, causing even more grief on the roads.

          The Law stands for a reason.

        • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 13:23

          @JediJan: dogs should be contained for a number of reasons, it's not just about them getting hit by cars. You've got your opinion, I've got mine. I think the dog owner is responsible for containing the dog to the yard and the driver is responsible to not hit stuff. Probably ends in bring a split of liability.

        • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 13:25
          +1

          @wtfnodeal: good luck with that. It there are a few here that are stuck on that point. Yes, the dog owner is responsible to keep it in the yard and not running around, not just becuas they run in front of cars though is it?

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 14:24

          @Euphemistic:
          I believe you will find the insurance company will take action against the owner of the dog for damages to the car. I have not heard of any change to the Law in this regard; did work for an insurance company, although many years ago. Poster said she will keep us up to date.

  • HeWhoKnows on 16/05/2016 - 13:36
    -2

    I beleive you have already answered your question: "I understand the responsibility falls on the owner for the damaged caused". How you resolve this matter is up to you . Not us. If you dont want to make a claim then just settle directly with the owner of the dog. Just make sure you do it properly!

    • victoria76 on 16/05/2016 - 20:02
      +1

      I was just putting it out there to see if this had happened to anyone else and how it was settled!

  • Charity on 16/05/2016 - 22:21
    +3

    How big was the dog, and what was actually damaged to your car? I just can't imagine a dog, weighing less than a Great Dane, causing damage to your car and still surviving.

    The $2000 seems like an inflated figure that only a panel beater milking an insurance company would charge. Most dogs don't have the mass to bend the bumper. Not without decent speeds at least. Only suggesting this because you may be able to fix your car yourself, or with a handy friend, for a lot less -and also avoid your insurance concerns.

    • chriskq on 17/05/2016 - 11:07

      comment irrelavant now - admin can delete

    • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 12:45
      -1

      I have known of cars being written off because of kangaroos. Why most country drivers have roo bars fitted … and why some are annoyed by those farmers who drive at 80kmh.

  • GameChanger on 16/05/2016 - 23:54

    How did you find the dog owner?

    • moo on 17/05/2016 - 10:28
      +12

      By singing 'Who let the dogs out?'

  • juki on 17/05/2016 - 00:22
    +4

    whatever the costs or damage, the dog owner is your intermediary, if he wants to make his roomie pay for it it's between them. he should pay you.

    thanks to those giving their more practical advice i had no idea of what OP should do either.

  • victoria76 on 17/05/2016 - 11:08
    +13

    The dog is a Rottweiler x Bull Arab. 45kg. The dog had a tag with contact details so we were able to contact the owners girlfriend immediately - she was there within 10 minutes and took him straight to vet.

    My car (Mazda CX9) has extensive damage to front bumper. Broken surround moulding on indicatior (within bumper) and moulding around wheel arch had also broken. I only obtained one quote but will certainly obtain a few quotes.

    It occured in a 60 zone but l was only travelling at around 40-50 as l had just exited a roundabout.

    If l had of seen the dog l would certainly of braked (as long as it was safe to do so). I never intentionally hit the dog!! As mentioned l did not even see him and only felt that my vehicle had hit something.

    A big thank you to those who have shared their advice and knowledge. Will let you know how it ends up.

    Vicki

    • chriskq on 17/05/2016 - 11:11
      +2

      Nice follow up. Hopefully the insurance claim goes smoothly. Keep us posted :)

    • [Deactivated] on 19/05/2016 - 08:17
      +3

      I think we'd all be interested in how you go. There's a lot of discussion here which says to me that no one is sure what the outcome will be.

      Just remember Viki that you haven't done anything wrong, accidents are unintentional. You did everything you had to, you stopped and helped the dog which is more than what I feel most people would have done. It's unfortunate that the dog got hit but sometimes these things just happen.

      There's nothing wrong in asking the dog owner to pay your bill. I think you're in the best position you could be in this situation since your insurance company is behind you, the dog owner would most likely not have pet insurance which some do cover things like this.

      Good luck :-)

    • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 12:49

      No; we'll just send our best wishes you are never put in that unfortunate situation.

  • Ughhh on 17/05/2016 - 12:51

    The dog (owners) is at fault in this instance, but if it was a person, I assume it would be the driver that is at fault?

    • GameChanger on 17/05/2016 - 13:06

      Its very hard to convict a driver.

      A family friend son got run over by some idiot who ran the red light, even with witnesses the guy walked free. The kid got brain damaged and was in a coma for 1 year.

      • tomleonhart on 17/05/2016 - 13:19

        Yup. Partner of a friend got hit by a car and went into coma for a year. They were crossing at the light.

        The driver was never convicted.

        There is no justice, only what you can prove in court.

        • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 13:29
          +2

          And that is a big downfall in our system. Drivers can go around, driving in safely and all they get is a slap with a wilted lettuce leaf when the inevitably kill or main someone. We need more responsibility placed on the pilot of what is effectively a deadly mass of metal travelling around.

    • chumlee on 17/05/2016 - 17:12
      +1

      So if I was driving and a pedestrian ran in front of my car as I was driving at 60km/h I am responsible even though the pedestrian did not look before stepping onto the road and it was not an intersection or anywhere else a driver needs to give way to pedestrians?

      Unfortunately the law disagrees with you and that is why jaywalking is illegal.

      • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 18:33

        it is entirely possible that a pedestrian might step out without any warning, but thre is still a level of responsibility on the driver.

        You might be interested to know thre is no concept of 'right of way' in the road rules, there is however a responsibility to give way in many situations. Just because you are travelling along speed limit, within the lane and within the rules doesn't absolve you of some responsibility to avoid crashing.

        Your example isn't why jaywalking is illegal. Jaywalking is a concept that only applies near an intersection, where a pedestrian is reasonably expected to cross at that location.

        • chumlee on 17/05/2016 - 18:40

          I never mentioned right of way so no not interested to know.

        • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 20:35

          @chumlee: and yet it is an important concept that Aussie drivers appear not to know. We are not trained to drive to the conditions and are largely expect the road to be clear ahead to drive at the posted limit. There is not enough training to drive defensively., expect the unexpected or make allowances for pedestrians, animals, poor road conditions or a myriad of other things.

        • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 10:23

          @Euphemistic: RACV here in Victoria run Defensive Driving lessons. I believe some are still held at Sandown Park Raceway. Recommend to anyone.

      • tomleonhart on 17/05/2016 - 18:43
        +3

        AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 236

        236—Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction

            (1)         A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.

        Offence provision.

            (2)         A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian.

        Offence provision.

            (3)         For subrule (2), a pedestrian does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another pedestrian only by travelling more slowly than other pedestrians. 

    (4)         A pedestrian must not stand on, or move onto, a road to— 

        (a)         solicit contributions, employment or business from an occupant of a vehicle; or 

        (b)         hitchhike; or 

        (c)         display an advertisement; or 

        (d)         sell or offer articles for sale; or 

        (e)         wash or clean, or offer to wash or clean, the windscreen of a vehicle.
        • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 10:27

          That's interesting. I have often wondered about the (almost) regular voluntary officials collecting for charities (Red Cross, Lifesaving, Fire Brigade/s etc.) close to home on a busy intersection. They mostly seek donations in right hand turning lanes (waiting for green arrows) at this intersection (Cnr. South Gippsland Highway and Cranbourne-Frankston Road). It can be a very busy intersection and I think the endeavour is rather risk taking. Ps. The local Police station is located on the very same intersection too.

      • Ughhh on 17/05/2016 - 20:24

        I don't agree that the driver should be at fault if a person jumps out onto the road, but I have no doubt that if you were to hit a child, you would get plenty of hate from people telling you shouldn't have sped etc etc.

      • minniethemoocher on 18/05/2016 - 09:50
        +1

        Interesting a friend of mine inadvertently walked in front of a bus. She got terrible injuries and was sent the bill for the bus repairs too.

        • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 10:34

          That sounds just awful. Saw two separate incidents of people hit by trams in Melbourne years ago (both pedestrians were at fault, the trams clanging their horns also), but both were killed, one outright.

          Another day I grabbed hold of a young student and basically spun him around on the spot to pull him back from the safety line as a tram approached. It was too close. He was a bit annoyed, but I was just too in shock to speak and explain. The tram inspector (just happened to be nearby … fortunately for me at least) gave the boy a right speaking too. I swear the boy really had no idea what the fuss was about. I hope he understood in the end though and would not do this again.

  • Aids on 17/05/2016 - 13:49
    +2

    This exact situation was brought up this morning on 774 with the talkback lawyer. The important point being, was the owner negligent in letting the dog escape? In your situation it appears they were, in letting the gate open, therefore the onus is on them.

    • chumlee on 17/05/2016 - 17:05

      Not exactly. David did say it was the time between the tree falling down on the fence and the cow getting on the road. As it all happened in a short amount of time David Whiting said it would be hard to prove the owner of the cow was negligent and owner of damaged car cannot sue for negligence.

      So I guess it depends how long after gate was opened did the dog run out onto the road and in front of OP's car?

      Much easier just to go through insurance

      • Aids on 17/05/2016 - 18:41
        +1

        I would've thought that leaving the gate open in the first place was negligent?

        • chumlee on 17/05/2016 - 18:44

          Depends how the dog got out I guess. This is why OP should lodge insurance claim. Could spend thousands of $ otherwise with no guarantee of success

  • StonedWizard on 17/05/2016 - 16:57
    +1

    OP claiming on your insurance doesn't effect your no claim bonus nor does it increase your premium when you're not at fault. Its amazing how many people think this is true.

    The reason your premium went up is because you became a greater risk to your insurance company since you lodged an at fault claim.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join