Animals and the law

Our man in Havana

General question. If you hit and injure/ kill an animal whilst driving could you be held liable for damages?

Tom Young

Technically - Yes. Now I assume the next question is from what statute or law?

Our man in Havana

Would it apply to a cat?

Tom Young

According to McMahon and Binchy:

It should be noted that where a person crashed a car into an animal straying on the highway the driver might not only find himself or herself remediless under old law, but might even be sued by the owner of the animal for damage to the animal. In such a case, however, there was no reason why the defendant could not successfully plead contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. No duty of care needs to be established for contributory negligence. All that is required was "want of care" on the part of the plaintiff.

Civil Liability Act 1961 S. 34(1). So possibly yes.

Our man in Havana

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for that.

dermot_sheehan

As quoted from mcmahon and binchy above,

trespass to goods would be the tort I imagine, or even a simple action in negligence. I believe case law has held you are entitled also to damages for emotional shock from having a pet killed. The actual economic value of a pet would be quite small (i suppose a few hundred euro unless a rare breed), the main damages would be the emotional harm to the pet's owner.

Carawaystick

wouldn't it depend on the animal?

Bos Primigenius would have an owner and have records on both ears,

canis lupus familiaris should really be on a lead

and I don't think anyone'd care if you hit a musca domestica with a car.

mikemac

This is all news to me
From a farming background it was always drilled into us that if you left a gate open and livestock caused an accident on the road then the farm would be liable for damages to the motorist who crashed.

Makes sense realy!

And another reason why farmers are nervous of walkers traipsing across land and leaving gates open :mad:

mikemac

Carawaystick wrote: »

wouldn't it depend on the animal?

Bos Primigenius would have an owner and have records on both ears,

canis lupus familiaris should really be on a lead

and I don't think anyone'd care if you hit a musca domestica with a car.

Well it wouldn't do for a lawyer to speak in plain English and use one word when ten will do!

hullaballoo

Carawaystick wrote: »

wouldn't it depend on the animal?

Bos Primigenius would have an owner and have records on both ears,

canis lupus familiaris should really be on a lead

and I don't think anyone'd care if you hit a musca domestica with a car.

I find the advent of google has taken the fun out of being haughty on the Internet for me.

Tom Young

mikemac wrote: »

This is all news to me
From a farming background it was always drilled into us that if you left a gate open and livestock caused an accident on the road then the farm would be liable for damages to the motorist who crashed.

Makes sense realy!

And another reason why farmers are nervous of walkers traipsing across land and leaving gates open :mad:

Yes indeed. It is a two way street, excuse the pun. The Occupiers Liability Act 1995 creates the issues you speak of in terms of access to lands and so on. There are four/five (incl. Occupier) types of users defined for the purposes of the provisions of that act.

jvm76

I recently had a collision with a neighbours dog who ran out of their property onto the public road in front of me. There was almost €1300 damage done to the front of my car. The dog got up and ran away and I have seen it lately so thankfully it wasn't seriously hurt.

My problem is that I am left with a large repair bill. What can I do? I spoke to the dog owner but did not get much feedback. I don't feel it was my fault as the dog ran out in front of me.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Our man in Havana

You would have a cause of action against the dog owner. Whether you win or not is another thing.

Speak to a solicitor.