new urban myth or fact.

time lord

Senario;
A dog is hit by a car on the road. For arguement sake he was under effective control but not on a lead. He has a collar on with owners details. The offending car drives off after a brief pause and look in the vehicle's mirror. The dog is dead.

Here is the myth/fact. If the dog had no collar he (the driver) would not of committed any offence but as the dog had a collar on he technically did a hit and run.

Just a teabreak yearn that divided our opinion this morning. Only a kit-kat riding on it..

Delancey

To the best of my knowledge ALL road accidents involving animals must be notified to the Gardai regardless of ID on animal or not.
Whether the animal was under effective control or not , is I also believe , irrelevant.

Others here will know for sure

Victor

All accidents with certain animals, including dogs, but not cats, need to be reported.

time lord

So one doesn't have to stop (dog collared or not). Just report it?

Delancey

time lord wrote: »

So one doesn't have to stop (dog collared or not). Just report it?

I have a feeling that that is indeed the case though I think anyone who hits an animal and keeps driving is a major-league sh1t.

mikemac

Has to be reported

If the car was damaged, you can use the information on the collar to get repairs paid for

FreudianSlippers

delancey42 wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge ALL road accidents involving animals must be notified to the Gardai regardless of ID on animal or not.
Whether the animal was under effective control or not , is I also believe , irrelevant.

Others here will know for sure

AFAIK this is spot on.

McCrack

There is an obligation contained in the Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended to report an accident to Gardai involving material damage and/or personal injury to another person. Animals don't come under this.

I would be interested if anybody could link statute re animals. I honestly don't think there there is any legislation obliging reporting hitting dogs, deer, sheep etc etc.

MagicSean

McCrack wrote: »

There is an obligation contained in the Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended to report an accident to Gardai involving material damage and/or personal injury to another person. Animals don't come under this.

I would be interested if anybody could link statute re animals. I honestly don't think there there is any legislation obliging reporting hitting dogs, deer, sheep etc etc.

It is injury to person or property. An animal would be considered property.

sbsquarepants

I'm 90% certain that if you hit a dog on the road, it is the dog owners fault, provided you hadn't just run a red light or similar. Dog's shouldn't be on the road, unless crossing under the control of a person, the licenced owner is ultimately responsible if they have allowed someone else to walk the dog for example. If the owner can be traced they are liable for any damge done to the car.
Bit sh1tty to land someone with a repair bill after knocking down their dog though!!

knird evol

Not the driver who hit it, but the next car along, the driver can eat the dog.

McCrack

k_mac wrote: »

It is injury to person or property. An animal would be considered property.

Agreed and now we are back to the OP question. A dog with a collar is assumed property and one without isnt?

What about a deer up the Dublin mountains? Is that property?

MagicSean

McCrack wrote: »

Agreed and now we are back to the OP question. A dog with a collar is assumed property and one without isnt?

What about a deer up the Dublin mountains? Is that property?

I think if you took reasonable steps to see if it has an owner you would be covered. Checkin for a collar and an owner nearby would be more than sufficient. Most dogs have owners so you are better off reporting it. If the deer has no kind of markings or tag i'd say your covered.

time lord

Thanks for all the replies. At the moment its looking like we will have to share the kit-kat although the collar does seem to mark out the dog as someones property.

Reloc8

Well, I don't know what the basis for the collar/lead or whatever is.

The Control of Dogs Act 1986 (s. 9) requires the owner of the dog to keep it under effectual control when not in the owner or another's premise (with the consent of the owner).

S. 21 makes the owner liable for damages caused in an attack on a person or an attack on livestock.

There is therefore no automatic liability to the owner for an accident involving a dog and a car. However if the dog was not under effectual control the owner is guilty of an offence under S. 9 (which has criminal and not civil application) and is probably negligent and therefore liable for the accident. This is not determined by whether the animal had a lead on but it would seem reasonable to conclude that where the dog is not on a lead and causes an accident the owner would be liable in most circumstances.

Duties on an accident arise where there is injury to person or property. A dog is property and therefore those duties arise (s. 106 RTA 1961).

Ronald Sherrif

Reloc8 wrote: »

Well, I don't know what the basis for the collar/lead or whatever is.


Duties on an accident arise where there is injury to person or property. A dog is property and therefore those duties arise (s. 106 RTA 1961).

A wild dog or other wild animal such as a badger is not property. No one owns it.
If a dog has a collar it indicates ownership by someone. The absence of a collar does not mean that no one owns the animal. If someone hits a wild bird whilst driving they would be under no obligation to report it.

Carawaystick

Victor wrote: »

All accidents with certain animals, including dogs, but not cats, need to be reported.

Obviously only certain animals need be reported, but even ones with owners such as honeybees hardly need be reported, while moths and butterflies would not need to be reported at all...

I remember hearing about certain types of fowl and poultry where ( I think I was told) poultry are grand to run over but fowl aren't (or vice versa) where ducks and geese are fowl, and hens, turkeys and bantams are poultry; and guinea fowl were the exception to prove the rule...

johnnyskeleton

k_mac wrote: »

It is injury to person or property. An animal would be considered property.

But do I own my dog and he just thinks he owns me? Or does he actually own me and I just think I own him?

Arguably property only arises when something has a monetary value, so while my thoroghbred mare is without doubt property, I'm not sure my pet skunk is.

Reloc8

Ronald Sherrif wrote: »

A wild dog or other wild animal such as a badger is not property. No one owns it.
If a dog has a collar it indicates ownership by someone. The absence of a collar does not mean that no one owns the animal. If someone hits a wild bird whilst driving they would be under no obligation to report it.

I havn't seen anyone say anything to the contrary, inasmuch as I think I understand what you're trying to say.