Ran over dog - owners want money

ishtarcelt

I was driving on the public road in Galway city, in the Westside area, under the speed limit (about 45k/hr), preparing to pull out right to enter a chicane (my right of way), when two little dogs ran onto the road from my right. I slowed , dogs kept coming, I swerved, but one dog actually ran under my wheels, there was a crunch, and then it ran off back across the road and up a small hill to a house in a housing estate up the Hill (Inishannagh). I braked and stopped, shocked. This was my downfall, as the owners came out, and knew me...
I reported the incident to the Gardaí, but the owners are asking me for money for the vets bill. I claimed that the dog shouldn't have been on a busy road at 4:30 pm, it should have been on a lead. Now I know they have no right to ask me for money, in fact I could sue them for damages to my car, and could (probably should) report them to the dog warden, but they are part of a large local family, and are putting heavy pressure on me to contribute - I wonder has anyone had any similar situations, or any advice?

Another question:
Should I have swerved at all, or slowed down, or should I have kept driving?
Did my swerving constitute dangerous driving? If a car behind me had ploughed into my back, would I have been liable, or the dog owner?

I was very shocked, not just because of the incident with the dog, but because I realised that a more serious crash could have happened.



The reason I didn't notice the dogs quicker is that 1) they were tiny 2) they appeared out of a column of traffic passing on the right, and all those cars were driving normally, none had attempted to slow or swerve, so I had no awareness of the dogs.

Any advice welcome

langer91

u should have sped up to finish it off

ishtarcelt

I'll end up with all my windows broken

ANXIOUS

They can ask you for money, but they have no legal standing.

number10a

I would think legally, they have no right to ask you for money. They shouldn't have allowed the dog to be in a public place unless it was under their "effectual control". Link

To answer your question about the driving, IMHO you would not have been responsible for anyone hitting you from behind. Isn't the general rule that if you are hit from behind, it is the driver behind is responsible no matter what the circumstances?? They should have been keeping a safe distance.

ishtarcelt

Thanks
It seems a bit clearer now, i was shaken up yesterday...

It's true, someone behind me would be liable if they hit me.
They have no legal right to ask for money, Its just that they know me, and know where I
live, and all the local kids are saying I ran over their dog.
The child is claiming that the dog cost over E400 too.

i said a lead costs less than E10, much cheaper than a vets bill of over E200!

They just don't want to pay the vets bill.

Would I be right in reporting it to the dog warden?

nuac

Ishtarcelt

Those dogs were out of control contrary to Secion 9 of Control of Dogs Act 1986. End of.

Number10A - not aware of any legal principle that following driver always responsible. Each case depends on it's facts.

Unwise to swerve or brake suddenly for a dog if that is going to endanger humans.

chiefwiggum

tell them that the dog caused 200 euros of damage to your wing/tyre/wheel whatever and that you expect them to pay for that...then suggest just calling eveything even....DO NOT GIVE THEM MONEY.....

Tom Young

and here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055673360&highlight=Animals

Owen

I'd be inclined to tell them to go and jump. Their lack of control of the dog caused you emotional torment, and has almost certainly damaged your car either cosmetically, or mechanically, or both (I'd check my car if I was you to be certain). As much as I love dogs, they've some cheek! I'd give them a bill for the repairs of the car, and ask if they'd like to call it quits.

FearDark

Buy the owners a lead tbh.

meathstevie

Tell them to get lost in a polite manner and also let them know that harrassment and intimidation are very much frowned upon by the courts as well.

Also a dog owner has to be in control of his/her dog at all times. That means either secured by fencing, on a lead, obeying voice and wistle commands etc etc.. .

OP, from your original post it appears that these dogs would not have been under sufficient control to prevent them from wandering.

From what you've written it appears you've fullfilled all your obligations in relations to RTC's involving third party property and when it comes to the damage side of things that's ultimately a civil matter but to me it appears that you could have suffered damage due to the negligence of the dogowner who was not having the dogs under proper control.

What would these people do if their dogs were causing hassle with livestock and a farmer gave them a serving of hot fast lead ? I wonder if they would be as fast to go looking for "vet money" in that case.

Enter Username

ishtarcelt wrote: »

I'll end up with all my windows broken

Do you think this could turn nasty? If so I would be inclined to find the most amicable solution for both parties.

It's easy for people to get on here and say things like "Give them nothing" but at the end of the day you will have to deal with them on a daily basis.

I cant imagine you are in any way liable. The angle I would take is to say there is a noise or a drag to the left/right on your car since the accident and that you have to get it checked by a garage, I would then suggest to them that they are liable for any costs that may arise from that. This may put the whole thing in perspective for them.

questionmark?

Do not give them money. You owe them nothing.

You need to check your car out for any damage. If any damage has occurred you can chase them up through the courts for money as a dog must be under their owners control at all times.

Of course if you think it will be easier on you then just tell them that they are liable for damage caused and call it quits.

Most importantly again do not give them money!

immature ejaculation

I think the dog owner needs a good kick up the hole! Whats to stop the other dog causing another maybe more serious accident? You shouldnt be made feel any pressure or guilt for the dog. In fact you should be putting pressure on them to get your car sorted.

Vanbis

ishtarcelt wrote: »

Another question:
Should I have swerved at all, or slowed down, or should I have kept driving?
Did my swerving constitute dangerous driving?

The answer to both questions would be yes, you should not have swerved and also this would constitute dangerous driving but you only had seconds to think and its a natural reaction for most.

I wouldn't report them to the dog warden, surley you just want to forget this and move on. Refuse to pay the money and soon enough the community will find something else to talk about it. I certainly wouldn't bow to local pressure no matter who they are. If it continues just go back to the police and explain, they may have a word with the owners.

MagicSean

ishtarcelt wrote: »

under the speed limit (about 45k/hr), preparing to pull out right to enter a chicane

ishtarcelt wrote: »

I slowed , dogs kept coming, I swerved

You were going under 45 kmph and had slowed down yet you still had to swerve and could not stop. This does not add up.

ishtarcelt wrote: »

The child is claiming that the dog cost over E400 too.

If the dog was a purebred this is quite possible. But as I understand it they just want the vet bills paid for and not the actual dog. What injuries were caused? Have they shown you the vet bill?

ishtarcelt wrote: »

I said a lead costs less than E10, much cheaper than a vets bill of over E200!

I'm sure they took your advice on board in the spirit it was meant. Although I think you probably just pissed them off with that.

ishtarcelt wrote: »

Would I be right in reporting it to the dog warden?

Don't think there would be any point unless the dogs are still running limping free.

chiefwiggum wrote: »

tell them that the dog caused 200 euros of damage to your wing/tyre/wheel whatever and that you expect them to pay for that...then suggest just calling eveything even

I don't think making false claims is the way to go.

immature ejaculation wrote: »

In fact you should be putting pressure on them to get your car sorted.

The Op has not said there was any damage done to his car. Or did I miss something?


Op you should have a look at the vet bill and make sure it is genuine. It sounds quite steep. If it is I would offer to pay half. If they accept well and good. If they don't they can take you to court. You've done more than what you should have. Like another poster said though. You are the one who has to live around these people on a daily basis.

Our man in Havana

Give them your insurance details. Let them sort it out.

Drummerboy08

Haddockman wrote: »

Give them your insurance details. Let them sort it out.

DO NOT DO THIS!

The dogs owners have to right (legally or otherwise) to ask you for money.

I was always under the impression that if I were to hit a dog which resulted in damage being caused to my vehicle the owner of the dog would be liable for any damage caused as long as I can track him down.

kenco

Hit a dog that ran out from a side road out of the blue a couple of years back in Thomastown. Was real shook and was not sure where i stood so called the police and was told i did nothing wrong as the dog should not have been loose and that they could try to find the owner if i wanted to claim from them ( small amount of damage and i did not bother)

Cant see how you are liable

Our man in Havana

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

DO NOT DO THIS!

The dogs owners have to right (legally or otherwise) to ask you for money.

I was always under the impression that if I were to hit a dog which resulted in damage being caused to my vehicle the owner of the dog would be liable for any damage caused as long as I can track him down.

Conversely the owner of the dog can sue you if he can track you down. You can then defend the case anyway you like. It would be up to a judge to decide who is liable. And are you going to pay all the legal costs out of your own pocket should you lose? That is what insurance is for.

Drummerboy08

Haddockman wrote: »

Conversely the owner of the dog can sue you if he can track you down. You can then defend the case anyway you like. It would be up to a judge to decide who is liable. And are you going to pay all the legal costs out of your own pocket should you lose? That is what insurance is for.

Is there any legal basis for the dog's owner being able to sue? Surely it is up to the ower to keep the animal under control?

I have a dog, and she's never ever been let onto the road.

Our man in Havana

Does it matter they have a legal basis? They can sue you and you will have to prove that you are right and they are wrong. Do you want the hassle of a court case? That is why people will try it on.

I had a cat run over by a boy racer, I found out who he was from the Gardaí and sent the vet bill to his insurance. They paid up immediately.

CoDy1

Haddockman wrote: »

Conversely the owner of the dog can sue you if he can track you down. You can then defend the case anyway you like. It would be up to a judge to decide who is liable. And are you going to pay all the legal costs out of your own pocket should you lose? That is what insurance is for.

This is incorrect. Dog owner cannot sue the op for anything. OP is not liable for anything. Op can claim for damages done (if any) to the car off of the dog owners house insurance policy. This is standard cover on house insurance policies.

There was no intent involved and dog should not be on a public road uncontrolled.

Our man in Havana

They can sue. I didn't say they would win. There is nothing to stop them trying it on.

Tom Young

According to McMahon and Binchy:

Quote:

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.

Shazanne

langer91 wrote: »

u should have sped up to finish it off

You're a sick b

---

d! The guy wanted advice - is that the best you can do:mad:

MagicSean

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

DO NOT DO THIS!

The dogs owners have to right (legally or otherwise) to ask you for money.

I was always under the impression that if I were to hit a dog which resulted in damage being caused to my vehicle the owner of the dog would be liable for any damage caused as long as I can track him down.

However under the road traffic act he is obliges to provide them with appropriate information and to provide the gardaí with his insurance details.

Mr. Presentable

The dog was uncontrolled and you hit it, OP. You have no responsibility.

Tom Young

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

The dog was uncontrolled and you hit it, OP. You have no responsibility.

Everyone totally confused now!? Good!

This is precisely why we don't DO LEGAL advice.

There is a Civil Liability which I outlined. Now, I am locking the thread.

The Road Traffic Acts also come into play here.

Tom