Speeding Car hits dog, who Liable

shy

Hi Guys

Im just after hearing a w###ker in a speeding car is just after killing our 10 yr old dog. The dog ran after the car, the driver was speeding and now my dog is dead, Im devasted as is the rest of the family. My question is who is liable us as dog owners or the driver for speeding in a quite cul de sac.

Brady

Sorry to hear about that... sounds terrible. I would imagine with it being a cul de sac under the law the speed limit should be 30 kmph in built up areas specifically for this reason, dogs / kids running around.

helimachoptor

If the dog ran after the car how did he get run over?

andreac

Sorry to say but if your dog was out loose and not under control then the driver is not at fault. He could actually claim off you for damages to his car if he really wanted to.

How do you know he was speeding? Can you prove it?

Sorry to hear about your poor dog but it shouldnt have been out loose on the road.

Brady

Have a look here;

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/travel-and-recreation/roads-and-safety/road_traffic_speed_limits_in_ireland

toadfly

Thats terrible, really sorry to hear it.

I'm not sure about the law but would assume they is a speed limit where ye live?

This happened to us years ago, our dog Jack was killed on the road, the woman that hit him had the cheek to come to our house saying "I hit your dog with my car, he's dead and he broke my light when his head was milled with my car so now you have to pay for the light".

I wasnt long telling her to pi$$ off or I would break her head :mad:

death1234567

andreac wrote: »

Sorry to hear about your poor dog but it shouldnt have been out loose on the road.

This. The dog owner is liable and the driver can claim for damages from them.

toadfly

death1234567 wrote: »

This. The dog owner is liable and the driver can claim for damages from them.

So a child is out on the road, the car hits them, kills them and the parents have to pay to fix the car?

shy

Im no sure of the exact details, there was damage to the front bumper and spot light so I assum dog ran out from the gateway and hit car head on, but driver was doing some speed as it was only a very short distance from were driver started his journey to were he hit dog less than 50feet.

Sorry for use of bad language but still in shock as loved that ole dog.

PCPhoto

pets are not supposed to be allowed loose in the neighbourhood - in fear they will attack postmen/children.

then again..... people in cars are not supposed to speed but proving driver was speeding is another issue.

I doubt you will have any luck - best course of action is a civil action against the driver of the car for the loss of family pet, but apportioning blame is difficult as you can see above ... both parties are guilty - and one would not happen without the other..... dog wouldn't have run after car if he was locked in, car wouldn't have ran over dog if dog was not chasing !!!

easyeason3

Dog owner is liable. Dog should have been restrained on a lead & should not have been out roaming around.

I know your upset but how fast do you think a driver can go in a cul de sac? Was the driver really speeding?

I'm sorry to hear about your dog. It's not a nice thing to happen at all & even though I said above he should have been restrained we all know that dogs will get out at any opportunity. It's an unfortunate situation to be in for the owner & the driver.

Lu Tze

TillyGirl wrote: »

So a child is out on the road, the car hits them, kills them and the parents have to pay to fix the car?

Analogy is flawed. Its an animal. Go the other direction. Farmer leaves gate open on field. Cattle escape, car hits one as it runs out in front of it. Yes, i think the animal's owner is liable.

toadfly

Lu Tze wrote: »

Analogy is flawed. Its an animal. Go the other direction. Farmer leaves gate open on field. Cattle escape, car hits one as it runs out in front of it. Yes, i think the animal's owner is liable.

Yes its an animal but it was still going too fast to be able to stop to avoid killing the animal.

What if it was a child? Are you saying animals arent an important part of a family and because they can buy another one it doesnt matter?

ArseBurger

TillyGirl wrote: »

So a child is out on the road, the car hits them, kills them and the parents have to pay to fix the car?

Well, if you had to have a licence for a child and they weren't allowed out unless on a lead, yes.

shy

Hi

It was a quite country laneway where there are three houses and loads of fields.

Yes I no the dog should have been kept in but he was a fecker for escaping.

Between the three houses there are 6 dogs so the driver shouldnt have been speeding. I will pay for the damage to his car but im hoping that he can be done for speeding or will take half the blame and half the cost.

toadfly

ArseBurger wrote: »

Well, if you had to have a licence for a child and they weren't allowed out unless on a lead, yes.

Bull, he shouldnt have been speeding.

TillyGirl

TillyGirl wrote: »

So a child is out on the road, the car hits them, kills them and the parents have to pay to fix the car?

that's a daft post to be honest, dogs are meant to be under control in public, chasing cars is not under control

shy wrote: »

Im no sure of the exact details, there was damage to the front bumper and spot light so I assum dog ran out from the gateway and hit car head on, but driver was doing some speed as it was only a very short distance from were driver started his journey to were he hit dog less than 50feet.

Sorry for use of bad language but still in shock as loved that ole dog.

You are presuming the driver was speeding, I reckon you should pay for the damage, so does the law.

easyeason3

shy wrote: »

Hi

It was a quite country laneway where there are three houses and loads of fields.

Yes I no the dog should have been kept in but he was a fecker for escaping.

Between the three houses there are 6 dogs so the driver shouldnt have been speeding. I will pay for the damage to his car but im hoping that he can be done for speeding or will take half the blame and half the cost.

So am I right in assuming that the speed limit would be around 80kph?

I am really not trying to be mean here but if there was 66 dogs between the 3 houses it would make no difference legally to the speed the driver does once it's within the set speed limit.
As far as I know he can't be done for speeding as it's the owners fault the dog got out & you don't have any proof he was speeding.
For your own sake pay for the damages done to the car in full but don't rely on his quotation, get one from a panel beater/ garage to make sure your not paying over the odds.

Lu Tze

TillyGirl wrote: »

Yes its an animal but it was still going too fast to be able to stop to avoid killing the animal.

What if it was a child? Are you saying animals arent an important part of a family and because they can buy another one it doesnt matter?

I'm a little sceptical about the speeding, as the OP said he had only travelled 50ft (16 yards?).

If it was a child it would be a tragedy, are you equating the death of a dog ato a childs then? I love dogs, but these are in no way simalar circumstances.

And if it was a child, i would still mostly blame the parent for leaving them running around the road unsupervised.

seamus

TillyGirl wrote: »

Are you saying animals arent an important part of a family and because they can buy another one it doesnt matter?

That's how the law sees it. Irish law in relation to animals comes from the 19th century and bears no relation to modern reality.

morganafay

Sorry about the dog, but I think both people were at fault here, the dog shouldn't have been loose, and the driver shouldn't have been speeding, if he was speeding. If the dog was loose by accident and the driver wasn't speeding, then it was an accident . . .

It's awful that the dog got killed, but a driver could be killed if they crashed trying to avoid a dog, so it works both ways.

shy

he was speeding, neighbours will vouch for that

justsomebloke

TillyGirl wrote: »

Bull, he shouldnt have been speeding.

can you or the OP confirm he was speeding and if so how?

Lu Tze

If it is on a country lane is it not an 80kph speed limit?

easyeason3

shy wrote: »

he was speeding, neighbours will vouch for that

What is the speed limit on the road?

Tow

death1234567 wrote: »

This. The dog owner is liable and the driver can claim for damages from them.

+ 1 That is the law, it is clearcut.

For example, my grandparents dog was killed by a car going out a gate, while the dog was walking along the footpath. There were witnesses who saw it all and said the car was flying. The dog caused £600 of damage to the car, and that was about 20 year ago. They ended up having to pay the lot.

shy

is there any point getting the guards. it was an 08 audi so we fecked it will cost a couple of hundred if not grand to get fixed and we literally have no money.

morganafay

Could you say to the owner of the car that you have witnesses to say he was speeding, and try to get him to forget about it in case he gets in trouble too?

I hate how people drive so fast in the country, when there easily could be a child there than ran out of their garden or something. I know children or dogs shouldn't run onto the road, but there's still no excuse for speeding . . .

easyeason3

shy wrote: »

is there any point getting the guards. it was an 08 audi so we fecked it will cost a couple of hundred if not grand to get fixed and we literally have no money.

I don't think so. They can't do anything about it as (don't mean this in a bad way) you were in the wrong letting the dog out on his own even if he did escape.
I'd contact your solicitor though. Get an agreement drawn up that you agree to pay the damages to fix the car but that no other claim can be made once it's fixed.
Last thing you want is that guy claiming whiplash or something.

Get a quote from a different garage/ panel beater to the one he's using to compare prices.

subway

you have no evidence the car was speeding so your out of luck.
it wont stand up in court so no point getting the gardai.
you can call them to confirm but i think they will say the same thing to you.

if you have it, pet insurance should cover the damage

eddiebarrett

Offer to pay €1 per week for the next thousand weeks:D

seamus

At best, you can have the driver cautioned based on any witness statements you might have. In absence of any actual evidence, you cannot prove that he was driving dangerously. The death of your dog is unfortunately not given any weight in this because dogs can move swiftly and most judges would errantly rule that the accident was "unavoidable".

In any case, anything done against the driver would be small revenge and you will continue to be liable for damages to his vehicle. Unless it can be shown that he drove towards your dog and maliciously ran him down, you will still be found to be liable.

My sympathies on the loss of your dog.

00112984

Did you have pet insurance on the dog? Most policies cover damage to property in the case of an accident.

Sadly, you are 100% responsible as the dog was on public property and not under control. The onus is on you to prove the driver was speeding and no have no way of doing that. You and the neighbours saying he looked like he was going too fast is one thing but it's not actual proof.

Sorry to hear about your dog.

shy

thanks for all the feedback. we had pet insurance put cancelled afew months ago due hitting hard times and now this. it doesn't rain but it pours.

lisar201

Unfortunitly from an insurance view the owner of the dog is liable and the driver could claim of your house insurance,In terms of him speeding it is going to be very difficult to prove he was. there would need to be tyres marks and you would need to get the gardai out to investigate so that he can be prosecuted,But i'm going to be honest the gardai don't want to know unless somebody is seriously injured.I know all this because i'm in the insurance industry myselfI am soooo sorry to hear about your dog i would be devestated too

Graces7

Surely the driver is insured?

Someone we know hit a dog that was always running at cars and rather than bump up her insurance she paid for the damage to her car.

So very sorry re the dog; but most of us know how hard it is at any speed to avoid a dog that chases cars.

There are houses here I dread driving past because their dogs tend to be loose. If I ddn't know the neighbourhood ?

The dog should have been confined. Period.

Hard to accept but fact.

subway

Graces7 wrote: »

Surely the driver is insured?

Someone we know hit a dog that was always running at cars and rather than bump up her insurance she paid for the damage to her car.

i'm sure they are, but the point is that the dog owner is liable so the car owner does not have to claim on their own insurance or pay out of their own pocket if they dont want to

jap gt

to be honest you should make some effort to pay, having knocked down a dog before, i was driving slow behind another car when a lab ran out hit my car broke light, bumper and radiator, cost over a thousand to fix, i went to the house and told them what happend, luckily they where ok about it and agreed to pay.

a lot of people have money worries these days, whats to say the driver isnt in the same boat as you. maybe meet the driver and if they were dog lovers they might come to some agreement.

sorry about the dog

rainbowtrout

TillyGirl wrote: »

Yes its an animal but it was still going too fast to be able to stop to avoid killing the animal.

Would you prefer if the driver swerved to avoid the dog and instead hit a person on the footpath or an oncoming car?

You don't have to be going fast to hit an animal, I've hit a couple of rabbits and a fox and a deer over the years. I hit the deer before Christmas while travelling at 100 kph on the N4. It came out of nowhere. I couldn't stop. My choice was hit the deer or drive head on into an oncoming jeep - also travelling fast. I hit the deer. When they just run out in front of you, it doesn't matter what speed you are going, there's no time to stop. If it was a dog I would do the very same and I have two dogs of my own.

I'm sorry for the OP, but the dog shouldn't have been loose. If the dog is an escape artist and can get out of the garden, then it needs it's own run or to be kept indoors.

TooManyDogs

It sounds like there are 2 seperate situations happening at the same time here.

It's against the law for the dog to be out on the road, the dog owner is liable for any damage the dog does to a car, regardless of how it does the damage i.e. if the car is damaged by hitting the dog the dog owner still has to pay. That simply is the law, as my solicitor sister is always saying 'the law is black and white, it's not moral' and I think that's the biggest mistake people make. It's rotten the dog died, I'd be devestated, and it's really unfair that the car was speeding but that doesnt change the law unfortunately.

The car driver shouldnt have been speeding, regardless of the dog, again that's simply black and white. If there's anyway of proving the car was speeding then I'd go after the car driver, but you couldnt mention the dog because you're liable for the damage anyway.

rainbowtrout

TooManyDogs wrote: »

The car driver shouldnt have been speeding, regardless of the dog, again that's simply black and white. If there's anyway of proving the car was speeding then I'd go after the car driver, but you couldnt mention the dog because you're liable for the damage anyway.

It would be hard for the OP to report the driver for speeding without saying why he was reporting him. If the driver was summonsed on the strength of that report, the first thing they are going to say is the dog ran out in front of him.

Also how can the OP prove the driver was speeding from a visual assessment? Was he sitting at the side of the road with a speed camera?

There have been numerous cases of penalty points thrown out of court with more proof than a visual assessment. Cars looks like they're driving faster on smaller roads anyway. He might not have been speeding.

gramlab

I have 2 dogs myself and live in the country. They never leave the house or their run unless being walked.

Might be hard to hear but if you loved the dog like one of the family then you should have ensured it was kept safely inside your own property.

If cars are speeding on the road, go to the cops/council and see what can be done.

Dogs on the road are bloody dangerous. I've clipped many a ditch trying to avoid them. I'd much prefer I made it home to my kids than be in hospital praising myself for avoiding a dog!

ppink

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It would be hard for the OP to report the driver for speeding without saying why he was reporting him. If the driver was summonsed on the strength of that report, the first thing they are going to say is the dog ran out in front of him.

Also how can the OP prove the driver was speeding from a visual assessment? Was he sitting at the side of the road with a speed camera?

There have been numerous cases of penalty points thrown out of court with more proof than a visual assessment. Cars looks like they're driving faster on smaller roads anyway. He might not have been speeding.

this is so true. we are on a country road and the limit is 80kmph but even doing 60kmph cars look like they are in a rally! the roads are so narrow it makes them look like they are going at 100mph.

adser53

TillyGirl wrote: »

So a child is out on the road, the car hits them, kills them and the parents have to pay to fix the car?

Don't be silly, it's not against the law to have your kids off leash, roaming and uncontrolled in the same way it is for dogs.

Sorry to hear about your dog OP but I'm afraid your liable cos your dog was roaming

28064212

TillyGirl wrote: »

So a child is out on the road, the car hits them, kills them and the parents have to pay to fix the car?

Yes, if there was no way to avoid hitting them (assuming a suitable speed). However, nobody is going to claim damages off a grieving family whose child just died. So here's a better analogy: Child isn't properly controlled, runs out onto road, car swerves out of way to avoid them and a crash ensues. Should the parents pay damages then?

cagney88

Control of dogs act ireland

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/act/pub/0032/index.html

Im afraid there isn't much you can do about the speeding.

tommyhaas

OP, sorry to here what happened your dog, but you have no proof the car was speeding, nobody can tell looking at a car whether it is doing 40/50/60 kmph, its only hearsay. IMO your lucky nobody was hurt by the driver swerving into a ditch/other traffic/pedestrian trying to avoid your dog. Personally I feel for the driver, he/she's obviously feeling bad over what happened, probley a little shook too, and knows their likley to face hassel getting the money for the cost of their car repairs

00112984

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Would you prefer if the driver swerved to avoid the dog and instead hit a person on the footpath or an oncoming car?

Would the dog owner still be liable for damage to the car in this instance? I believe they would as the damage was still caused by a dog who wasn't under control of the owner but Mr. 00112984 thinks the onus would be on the driver to prove the dog was there in the first place.

Does anyone know?

crotalus667

shy wrote: »

he was speeding, neighbours will vouch for that

That does not mean squat unless they can prove what speed he was doing

shy wrote: »

is there any point getting the guards. it was an 08 audi so we fecked it will cost a couple of hundred if not grand to get fixed and we literally have no money.

The gaurds are not goinig to go all csi to check if he was speeding and keep in mind the could (but more than likly will not) fine you

Graces7 wrote: »

Surely the driver is insured?

do you think the insurence company are just going to say ok here is the cash ?? nope they are going to see if some one can be made pay which means the op could end up paying costs as well



OP I am sorry for your loss but you where 100% in the wrong human life is valued above the life of a dog , if they want you to repair the car pay it and be happy you are not paying of the drivers coffin (they could still sue you for distress ect)

sorry about your dog ! unless the driver is a tool he should leave it

jap gt

[quote=[Deleted User];66701932]sorry about your dog ! unless the driver is a tool he should leave it[/QUOTE]

why should he though, he didnt mean to hit the dog and deserves his/her car fixed