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

    • macrocephalic on 17/05/2016 - 17:18

      Go now and complete two online insurance quotes, in one, tell them you've had no not-at-fault accidents, in the other tell them you've had 10. Tell me it doesn't affect your risk rating. If it didn't then they wouldn't ask the question.

      • StonedWizard on 17/05/2016 - 17:44
        +2

        I think you fail to understand how insurance works. It's all based on risk. The reason they ask that question is to establish if you're more risky to insure.

        Read the PDS. So long as you can identify the other party then you're deemed not at fault.

        The OP knows the persons name and where they live. Therefor the insurance company can recover the cost of damage to the persons car.

        If the OP come back to their car and found it's been keyed even though they didn't cause this. The insurance company can't recover the cost and it's deemed as an at fault claim because they cannot recover the cost. Most people wouldn't see this type of claim as an at fault claim since they weren't behind the wheel. But to the insurance company you are now more risk to insure.

        • macrocephalic on 17/05/2016 - 19:24
          +2

          Yes, it is all about risk - that's why they ask you the question; someone who has been in more at fault accidents is deemed to be a higher risk. You admit as much, yet you think that this not at fault accident won't be deemed as a higher risk.

        • StonedWizard on 17/05/2016 - 19:58

          @macrocephalic:

          Exactly, which is why I said if the OP lodged on his insurance it won't increase his premium or anything

        • macrocephalic on 18/05/2016 - 09:25
          +1

          nm

    • imurgod on 18/05/2016 - 07:56

      This is correct. Glad you saved me typing it.

  • mranderson978 on 17/05/2016 - 18:15
    +1

    This is precisely why we have insurance in the first place so I'm glad that's the option you took.

    Hopefully everything goes smoothly with the insurance and the story has a reasonably happy ending.

  • JimmyF on 17/05/2016 - 19:13
    -7

    You hit the dog while driving, you're at fault…. Case closed, use your insurance.

    On the flip side, the dogs owner could sue YOU for hitting their dog and all costs to go with that. You had been in charge of a car and failed to stop etc.

    • wtfnodeal on 17/05/2016 - 20:18
      +2

      Serious? If I own 10 dogs I could potentially seize the whole freeway traffic and sit to wait for compensation who hits my dogs?

    • imurgod on 18/05/2016 - 07:54
      +2

      You know it doesn't work that way, right? The dog owner is responsible for the dog and any damage it causes.

      • JimmyF on 18/05/2016 - 18:16
        -2

        and you know you as a car driver they are responsible for any damage your vehicle does too…..

        Driver failed to drive safety and avoid a obstacle. Replace dog with child and would you be saying the same?

        OP runs over a child that the parent was 'responsible' for them. You would then demand the parent pay for the OP damage?

        • McFly on 18/05/2016 - 18:26

          Dog=Human. Yeah, we get it. Of course.

          Here's something to make your head explode: Dog gets out, chases child who escapes by getting into an unlocked car, but somehow turns off the handbrake and car rolls onto other side of road and collides with a car coming the other way.
          Who's at fault???

        • Euphemistic on 18/05/2016 - 21:42

          @McFly: obviously th driver of the other car, geez why don't you think of a tricky situation.

        • JimmyF on 18/05/2016 - 22:30
          -4

          @McFly: In the insurance world, its basically who hits who…..

          So if car coming collides into rolling car in front of them, they're at fault, failed to stop.

          If car rolling hits car coming (which would have to be in side), they're at fault!

          Its always who hits who…

          Parked at lights and car runs in to the back of you and pushes you FORWARD into the car in front. Guess what? You're at fault for the damage to the car in front. Failed to leave enough space.

          Can that hit you, pays for your damage.

        • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 10:44
          -1

          @McFly: Let us know … please … the suspense is killing me! I would guess at the owner of the dog, who is responsible for the chain of events in the first place. If the dog was out of the picture then the parents of the child, who were responsible for the actions of the child. I imagine the owner of the vehicle would have some rights to sue for damages, but he would also probably be in some bother himself for leaving his car unlocked (it is an offence in Victoria … and some have been booked at a local service station for doing just that).

          I appreciate that all children are equipped with Houdini instincts, and few never abscond from their parents, at some stage in their lives. (I myself, left in the care of a grandmother, managed to somehow escape and crossed a few main roads … when I was 2).

        • tomleonhart on 20/05/2016 - 12:07
          +2

          @Level380:

          Parked at lights and car runs in to the back of you and pushes you FORWARD into the car in front. Guess what? You're at fault for the damage to the car in front. Failed to leave enough space.

          Lol BS.

          My mate was involved in a 4 cars piled up. He was in the second car from the front, the car who failed to stop foot the bill for all 3 cars in front.

        • imurgod on 22/05/2016 - 10:24
          +1

          Not really the same thing since the law puts a human life above that of an animal. Further, the driver did not fail in any way since the dog ran out in front of the car and it's unreasonable to expect the driver to avoid hitting them. A dog is required to be either kept from running out into the public or on a leash when out in public. Dog owners have a duty of care since dogs don't reason like humans do. How many times have you watched the news to see a story of a child mauled by a dog that wasn't properly restrained? Some dog owners simply aren't responsible enough to own a dog. The driver's ordinary course was interrupted by the dog running out in front of the car the same way it would have if a car had run a red light. The driver did the right thing by stopping after the incident in any case.

          It never ceases to amaze me when people compare a dog to a child. It's far from the same thing. Silly comparison to make.

        • JimmyF on 22/05/2016 - 23:05

          @imurgod: unreasonable to expect the driver to avoid a dog, but not if it was a kid….. strange logic about what is 'reasonable' and why it applies to one and not the other.

          If the driver should/could stop for a kid, then why not a animal?

          parents have the same duty of care as animal owners, ie don't let them run out on to roads!

        • imurgod on 24/05/2016 - 07:38

          Its unreasonable in both instances. Maybe I wasn't clear. The driver was unable to avoid a dog, or a child for that matter, running out in front of the car. The law states that the dog must be restrained in public, not a child. Hence the owner being held negligent. An insurer would never chase the parents of a dead child because it would be a media nightmare and frankly, very poor form, but they will chase the owner of a dead dog. Again, the lives of a dog and a child are not of the same value.

  • nickster9999 on 17/05/2016 - 19:36
    +4

    Reminds me of the episode in Seinfeld, when George gets a fortunate parking spot right in front of the hospital, which becomes unfortunate when a mental patient at the hospital suicidally jumps from the roof and lands on his car. Later, George attempts to get the hospital to pay for the car's damages, but is rejected due to his callousness of caring more about the car instead of the patient's death.

    • Godric on 18/05/2016 - 08:35
      +1

      That parking spot was admirable though

      • StewBalls on 18/05/2016 - 11:34
        +2

        The government's been experimenting with pig-men since the '50s!

  • Kaidra on 17/05/2016 - 19:45
    +3

    The dog did $2,000 worth of damage and…. SURVIVED?!?! What the hell are you driving? A crystal chandelier? 😉

    • JimmyF on 17/05/2016 - 20:00

      I was thinking the same….. Unless the OP swerved and hit something else are clipping the dog!?

      Anyhow, another one of these not my fault generation looking for someone else to blame.

      • chriskq on 17/05/2016 - 21:32
        +3

        A Mazda CX9 was mentioned in the comments above - and the dog was a Rottweiler x Bull Arab. 45kg - seems v reasonable to me

    • imurgod on 22/05/2016 - 10:28
      +1

      2K is reasonable. Behind the bumper nowadays are brackets, etc. that crush on the slightest impact. Never seen one repair come in under about 1500 or so.

  • ankor on 17/05/2016 - 21:31

    Is the dog owner's yard well fenced?

    • chriskq on 17/05/2016 - 21:33
      +1

      sounded like it escaped via a gate that the dogs owners flatmate had left open accidentally or not closed correctly.

      • matt_will_fix_it on 17/05/2016 - 21:46
        +1

        Yep, and if that is the case you would need to prove the dog owner was negligent in order to sue for damages.

        • chriskq on 17/05/2016 - 22:12
          +2

          well the dog escaped,wasn't on a leash and the owner wasnt home when it happened. Seems pretty straight forward to me. I'm a doge owner

        • jenkemjunkie on 19/05/2016 - 21:04
          +1

          @chriskq:

          rules of evidence don't really work like this in court.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/05/2016 - 08:39

          @jenkemjunkie: Completely agree, if someone comes and opens your gate letting your dog out without your knowledge then the owner hasn't been negligent (at least by nsw laws).

          You still might be able to chase the dog owner for compo though, he then has to chase who ever left the gate open. We really need more info on what happened.

        • ankor on 24/05/2016 - 14:07
          +1

          @jenkemjunkie:

          This is what I'm alluding to. It's going to be one person's report of what other people have said, that will be refuted by the house mate and dog owner further down the track..

          To op:
          Good luck though, keep pushing your insurer and keep escalating through to the highest level to get your excess waived..

  • imurgod on 18/05/2016 - 07:51
    +11

    This is pretty simple. I have some 15 years experience in motor claims and I can assure you that your best option is to claim. You have all the necessary information for the insurer to seek recourse against the dog owner who is very clearly at fault. This is a no brainer. Make a claim, they'll repair your car and chase the dog owner. The fact remains that he is responsible for the dog and is negligent in this case regardless of the housemate. He could take action against his housemate if he wanted but he won't get anywhere as the responsibility rests with him. If he has home insurance, it will almost certainly be covered unless he has a really terrible policy. If not, tough. That's the risk of not having any insurance.

  • Godric on 18/05/2016 - 08:33

    This should be handled same way as roo collisions, N-Af claim excess applied, in this case if TP admits their absence of responsiblity to your insurer then excess may be waived and reimbursed.

  • 808State on 18/05/2016 - 14:38
    +1

    You pay all that money for insurance, let them chase the dog owner not you. I don't understand why people who aren't at fault and can identify the at-fault party don't use their insurer.

    • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 10:49

      Some people feel sorry for the dog's suffering and the owners expense, even though it was not their fault, and some are concerned about retribution. Others don't trust their insurance companies, concerned about losing their ratings etc., although neglect by others shouldn't really penalise them. It is unfair if your car is damaged and you cannot identity the offenders, and you claim on your insurance, only to find your insurance premiums have gone up and your otherwise perfect driving, rating 1 has been downgraded.

  • StewBalls on 18/05/2016 - 15:57
    +4

    I'm staggered by the level of idiotic, uninformed strawmanning going on in this thread; thankfully there's plenty of cogent, reasonable answers to balance it as well; but I truly thank my lucky stars that some of the more delusional commenters here are not writing our legislation.

    • tomleonhart on 18/05/2016 - 16:34
      +1

      But but but what if she hit a child ?

      • chumlee on 18/05/2016 - 16:36
        +5

        Yes. Won't someone please think of the children

        • StewBalls on 18/05/2016 - 21:15
          +3

          I'll see your children & raise you some kittens…yes, that's guilt you're now feeling you monsters! ;)

        • Euphemistic on 18/05/2016 - 21:44

          @StewBalls: there's no such thing as monsters, so you can't hit them with your car. Lucky, becuase no one would be responsible and the damage would be a monstrous burden.

        • StewBalls on 19/05/2016 - 19:25
          +2

          @Euphemistic: There's no such thing as the hypothetical kids & other imaginary stuff you've been talking about here in this context either…OP hit a dog, nothing more…

        • Euphemistic on 19/05/2016 - 19:33

          @StewBalls: but, hypothetically speaking, he might have hit something more and just not want to talk about it.

          Edit: successful trol is successful :)

          Edit edit: spelling fial!

        • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 10:53

          @Euphemistic: Edit edit edit: spelling fail. Sorry, couldn't resist ;o).

          No matter; I have made a few here too.

  • FittyFitty on 18/05/2016 - 17:55
    +1

    Get a police report, if you haven't already, and let your insurance handle it. It's not your fault; shouldn't cost you the access either.

    • syousef on 19/05/2016 - 12:59
      -2

      Access to what? I think/hope you mean excess.

      • FittyFitty on 19/05/2016 - 22:00

        You're right, Jose! How's that for a stroke of ego? :)

  • easternculture on 18/05/2016 - 22:04
    +3

    I'll call a couple of my cousins and we will pay them a visit.

    This is how we do things in Bankstown :)

    • Lil B on 18/05/2016 - 23:09
      +1

      I legit just spat my beer out all-over my screen after reading this.

      Couldn't even kill a dead fly, mate.

      I'M CRYING!

    • TheOneWhoKnocks on 20/05/2016 - 07:25

      Yalla Yalla!

  • lord henry on 19/05/2016 - 00:13

    If the dog owner did nothing wrong, but their flatmate left a gate open which led to the crash, I'm not so sure the dog owner is legally at fault.
    Either way, there is a bit of grey area = less likely the owner will play ball = more lawyer time to get anywhere = you're worse off.

    You should really just go through your insurer. Name the dog owner. The rest is their problem.

  • Oliver on 19/05/2016 - 00:17

    1. My car was once keyed too - premium went up because you have to make a claim without being to name the person at fault, so by default they blame yourself. When someone else is at fault, like the owner/flatmate in charge of the dog, it wont affect your rating or premium. This is a common misconception by people. After all why have insurance if you're not going to claim on it when needed? Duuuuhhhh.

    2. The word you're looking for is "due" not "do" - sounds like you've learned to speak based on listening to 'muricans.

    • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 10:56
      -1

      Um …
      "The word you're looking for is "due" not "do" - sounds like you've learned to speak based on listening to 'muricans."

      'muricans aye!

  • syousef on 19/05/2016 - 12:57
    +6

    This thread has proven to me that some Ozbargainers has trouble distinguishing between a wild animal, a domesticated dog, and a child. To them my message is simple: Please don't procreate…or adopt a pet…or give legal advice.

    • McFly on 19/05/2016 - 14:09
      +3

      … or drive!

      • syousef on 19/05/2016 - 14:26
        +2

        Or speak English.
        " some Ozbargainers has trouble " - I'm clearly tired. (I know why I did it. I started off saying "many an ozbargainer has trouble" or something similar and reworded it but without checking the grammar. Nonetheless I should take a vow of non-communication).

        • tomleonhart on 19/05/2016 - 14:29
          +1

          why are you replying to yourself ?

        • tomleonhart on 19/05/2016 - 14:29
          +2

          @tomleonhart: Yes Tom, Why are you talking to yourself?

        • syousef on 19/05/2016 - 14:29
          +1

          @tomleonhart:

          I needed some sanity in my life.

          And I get annoyed at myself when I make mistakes like that. Second I made today. Proof that 3 hrs sleep and a 5:30am start are not a good plan.

        • StewBalls on 19/05/2016 - 19:22
          +4

          @syousef: My great grandfather used to say that talking to himself was the only way to guarantee an intelligent conversation… ;)

        • retiredfeline on 20/05/2016 - 07:52
          +1

          @StewBalls: Problem is I always lose when I argue with myself. ;)

        • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 10:58

          @greenpossum: Well, no one else listens to me ;o)

    • FittyFitty on 19/05/2016 - 22:02

      I think/hope you meant to say 'have'; should'a/would'a/could'a ain't cut the mustard…

  • SpendLess on 19/05/2016 - 19:04
    +1

    I dont get this. Are you full comp? I dont understand why you arent going to your insurance if you are. Last accident my partner was in we called the insurance and they handled everything.

  • jenkemjunkie on 19/05/2016 - 21:00
    +2

    What was the lighting in the area like? What speed were you going? Are you familiar with that particular street? Who was in the car with you? What were you discussing? When did you notice something awry? What time exactly did the collision take place? What time did you leave the scene? Why weren't police called? What sort of dog was it? Did you get the dog registration? What was the dog's name? What colour was the dog? What clothes were the dog owner wearing? See what I am getting at…that's what court will be like.

    Do not take it to court because it would cost you way more and yield nothing. Were police called? No. Were there any witnesses that are willing to testify if you choose to bring tortious action to the dog owner? Doesn't sound like it. You will also get hyper-analysed and cross examined if the respondent has a lawyer themselves.

    What if the dog owner was to submit that you were driving negligently? And what if the judge in the matter was to say that it is accepted that drivers must take into account the possibility of careless behaviour by pedestrians and the fact that they are in charge of frequently lethal machines? Which was defined in stocks and baldwin (1996) Or…

    Motorists should "exercise quite a high degree of vigilance, especially in the presence of other traffic and in the vicinity of intersections…which was defined in Turkmani v Visvalingam[2009]

    What if the respondent was found negligent but then you yourself were also found contributory negligent?

    I'm not saying what's right or wrong but these circumstances will all be entertained to you if you did see a lawyer and chances are they would tell you it wouldn't be prudent to pursue. You will have the evidentiary burden to prove causation on behalf of the dog owner (Strong v Woolworths). You have little evidence to prove a breach in the statutory test of causation as there is no witness statements and no police reports with no one called to the scene. Your lawyer would say you would likely fail to discharge this burden. The courts will also see that you're insured and really dislike the fact you are proceeding on such a paltry sum. Civil courts usually find in favour of the pedestrian.

    • Euphemistic on 19/05/2016 - 22:53
      +1

      I think he said ring your insurance company and let them sort it out.

      • jenkemjunkie on 20/05/2016 - 04:50

        OP doesn't want to use her insurance. She wants to keep it in the box so it stays nice and shiny.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/05/2016 - 23:41
    +2

    OMG OMG OMG , is the car ok ???

    • kima on 20/05/2016 - 04:15
      +1

      i actually saw a bad accident where a motorbike ran up the back of a car and it landed ontop of him. the driver was really uninterested in helping him and her daughter got out and was doing exactly that, how dare he damage our car! while he was on the road with the bike ontop of him.

      • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 11:04

        I saw a Police motorbike rider come to grief when the car (in front of him) was making a right hand turn. He was okay fortunately, but not very happy, the bike would have been a bit scraped at least.

        I always give motorbikes a fair bit of distance (unlike most other drivers), so much so that they appear to like riding in front of me, as opposed to weaving in and out of traffic. After observing the above accident I was having dreams of riders falling off their bikes in front of my car.

  • kima on 20/05/2016 - 04:13

    how can you hit a big dog and not see it at all? you must daydream when you are driving.

    • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 11:06

      Dogs can easily fly out between parked cars. They are (usually) shorter than humans and rather a tad faster too. I wouldn't dare to say what you just did … your name may be changed to Karma before long. Good luck though.

      • kima on 20/05/2016 - 19:01

        Yes it might fly out and you might not be able to stop yourself from hitting it but I just can't understand not being able to see it at all its a big dog. I actually was taught to slow down and watch in such situations, because of children especially - its one of the main tests you need to take for getting your license: Hazard perception test. I am not joking but i actually saw a frog jump on the road and avoided hitting him

        • JediJan on 20/05/2016 - 19:25

          That was lucky for the frog. I have been a passenger in a vehicle that did not manage to stop in time for a dog that flew straight out into peak hour traffic. It was badly injured; owner had carelessly opened his truck door and it actually did fly out (at height too) without a care for the traffic. There simply was not enough time for driver to stop and braking suddenly almost resulted on a pile up too.

          A family of native ducks decided to cross a suburban street (right to left) at about 1am this past year. Unlit patch of road on a dark night. I was slowing from 40-50kmh as nearing a roundabout, so I stopped easily well clear of them and waited patiently for them to cross (they did look like they were going back again too at one point). Must have been duck season I guess; we seem to have an influx of them at certain times. I think they were lucky I was not one of those out for a few drinks.

        • JediJan on 21/05/2016 - 10:09

          Not I that negged; I would only do that to unsavoury comments.

        • Euphemistic on 21/05/2016 - 13:02

          @JediJan: crickey, you've had a lot of incidents, or friends with incidents. I hope I'm not driving in the same state as you, would hate to become on of your stories.

        • JediJan on 21/05/2016 - 17:26

          @Euphemistic: I have a pretty unblemished driving record and as a result pay the lowest of insurance premiums, with protected rating one. I would not take the risk of driving uninsured though; it only takes a moment's distraction to come to grief. I think you were being a bit harsh on the OP to suggest the incident may be her fault.

          I am not a perfect human being without flaws though. I had an old enough to know better child open a rear door whilst I was parking a few years ago and claimed that on insurance. That was my fault; guess I should have used the child locks on a teenager!

          Probably just a tad older than you, always drove to work, about 3 hours minimum a work day, and have tens of thousands country kms clocked up over the years.

          As for the friend's incidents; well maybe that is because I have a lot of friends lol. I didn't even mention the family! Most of us own dogs and know we are liable for any damage they cause, and are covered under our household insurances.

        • Euphemistic on 22/05/2016 - 08:21

          @JediJan: I didn't really intend to indicate the op was definitely at fault, I just think there are too many drivers out there trying to get away with blaming someone else when they were either not paying attention or not driving to the conditions. It is commonly accepted that a crash is an 'accident' indicating it is outside of the drivers control, but when it actually was within the drivers control, but they made a poor choice by not paying attention or not driving to the conditions. Cars are deadly when not used properly

          I too have clocked up tens of thousands of kms driving, both country and city. I went through a couple of company cars at over 160000km, pretty much all mine and then there were personal cars. I also have a relatively unblemished record with highest rating etc. I'm also not perfect having had my share of infringements in my younger days and a minor incident or two here and there to which I accepted responsibility, including hitting a roo.

          No one is perfect, but I still can't see how the dog owner can difnitively be held responsible unless the insurance investigators can prove the owner is negligent in letting the dog escape, otherwise I think it is in the same category as hitting a roo.

        • JediJan on 22/05/2016 - 12:02

          @Euphemistic:
          I think we drive more carefully as we get older because we have witnessed more radical driving and heard of more fatal incidences than the younger ones. We have undoubtedly lost a few friends in car accidents along the way too.

          The OP says she has witnesses to her benefit so I would see no problem to her claim. Her insurance company should look after her interests and take the necessary action against the dog owner. I had an insurance company ask me to attend court as witness to a claim once, but unsure if they would go that far for a minor amount and just write if off.

          It would take reports of dangerous driving or similar to switch any fault to the OP. If your dog manages to escape and causes any grief then you are accountable for the damages. Wild or feral animals just don't come into the same category from an insurance point of view.

          We'll have to wait to hear from the OP as to the outcome. Who knows the dog owner may recompense her once he realizes she will contact her insurance company. The worst person to pay me for damages (3 quotes in those days) was a barrister … perhaps he told me that in an attempt to put me off … but it was the common (his) front end to my car's rear so he really had no leg to stand on (apparently brake failure on his part).

          I enjoyed a movie called "The Man Who Sued God" starring Billy Connelly. A bit ridiculous (it is a lighthearted comedy) but good fun to watch; highly recommend. ;o)

          Ps. I only drive white cars these days (25 years plus); seems to be a deterrent against other cars hitting mine. Black and blue look pretty but others used to claim they didn't see them. (Kangaroos don't seem to distinguish between any or show any preferences lol.) And yes, I often have the lights on in poor weather too.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/05/2016 - 20:23
          +1

          @JediJan: The place I grew up had all sorts of wild animals crossing the street i.e. dogs, rabbits, lizards, snakes even a local peacock. The street is dark a night since almost none of the street lights work and it's very bendy and hilly with bush either side. What I am eluding to is that I'm constantly scanning for little things such as lizards because that's what I'm used to. Rabbits are the worst since they zig zag in front of your car and I've once swerved three times to avoid a rabbit that kept zigging and zagging back in front of my car until I hit it.

          As for the owner being responsible, the law in NSW is written such that the owner must have acted negligently in some way in order for the car accident to be his "fault". Negligence can be leaving a gate open, not having adequate fencing, walking the dog off leash, letting go of the leash etc. It's written in the "COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998", Section 28 pretty much spells it out. Just because the dog escaped and a car hit it doesn't mean that the owner of the dog is automatically liable. I'm sure there are other acts which say different things but I don't think this is as clear cut as the dog owner being immediately responsible. This is what @Euphemistic is trying to say, it's not as clear cut as one might think.

          If it was me, I'd tell my insurance company and let them sort out the legal stuff. I know the OP doesn't want to do this but it's by far the easiest way. They have buildings full of lawyers who sit around and discuss whether it's worth chasing these things, that's their job!

        • JediJan on 11/06/2016 - 15:44

          @alm865: It will be up to the dog owner to show he was not liable for securing the gate. It would be his choice to then counteract and sue his housemate.

          When travelling long distances I prefer to travel in daylight hours if possible to avoid the chance of hitting stray animals; wild, domesticated or feral. Animals can be quite confounding I know; like a family of (native) ducks I stopped for one evening (no one else on the road in a quiet suburban street), decided to cross the road from my right to left, then dithered, changed their mind and recrossed again.

          I agree with you; let the insurance company sort out the finer details, as it is what you pay your premiums for.

          Check out that movie too … "The Man Who Sued God" starring Billy Connelly. Insurance; love them or hate them but who would be without them.

  • cryptos on 20/05/2016 - 10:27
    +1

    To the OP I know your trying to do the right thing morally by engaging the driver etc

    However you PAY for insurance for situations like this, insurance companies deal with these scenarios all of the time. In theory they represent you and will/should pursue the owner for damages; this should not affect your excess as you would not be at fault and can name the other party, no claim and premiums are at the descretion of your insurer. (You can always change provider)

    Totally owners fault, they own the dog, they own the responsibility. Flat mate let the dog out has nothing to do with the owners responsibility to you.

    • Euphemistic on 20/05/2016 - 12:09
      +1

      The whole 'it's gonna make my premiums go up' thing is a bit of a joke really. How much extra of your time and money is it going to cost you to save the little bit they might increase your premium for a not at fault incident. Chase the at fault party yourself will cost you a lot of time and can be easily ignored by them, engage a solicitor and quickly your insurance savings are going to get eaten up.

  • eneloop on 21/05/2016 - 07:26
    +1

    My father had a dog which jumped the fence and got hit. My father was a pensioner at the time and the dog caused around 2.5K damage. Of course he had no money so he ended up on a payment plan of around $20/month and this went on for a while until they just gave up and cancelled it.

    • Euphemistic on 22/05/2016 - 08:23
      +3

      Was this dog a known escape artist? Or was it something outside the dogs normal activities? Be interested to know. IMO it makes a difference, but maybe not to insurance.

      • kima on 22/05/2016 - 19:31

        yes it does make a difference. i have found most dogs that have escaped have done so because their owner just lets them. the fence is dodgy and they don't fix it, they make stupid excuses and couldn't care less yet they demand on keeping it and letting it risk being hit by a car than giving it to someone who will actually care about it. i found a dog that was missing for over a week, the owner posted all over facebook but was too lazy to walk out the front and look for it. the telegraph pole infront of her house had a found poster of the dog and it was only 3 houses away from hers - in the front yard for all to see (4 reports on facebook of it almost being hit by cars and 1 that it was hit) . 2 days later dog was gone again - and on heat.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join