My dog was knocked down

joe6pack

Last night my family pet dog was knocked down...thankfully he has survived with just a few knocks and is very shaken.
This happened last night while my 13 year old was walking him he was hysterical when he got back to the house.
The driver of the car followed my son home and asked him could he speak to his parents.
So during the commotion of trying to assess the dogs injuries and calm three young children the driver demanded I come out a look at the "damage" on his car which I did.
As it was dark out I couldn't really properly see if there was any damage but it certainly didn't look as if there was.
All I could tell is that it was a 2002 dark colored Ford mondeo so I asked the man if he would come back tomorrow when it's bright and we'd have another look.
He agreed but insisted that the damage will need to be paid for by me.
And mentioned a sum off €500
Does anyone know what my stance should be on this?
Am I 100% liable?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

L1m1tless

was the dog on a lead? how did it happen? Glad he is Ok.

thomas anderson.

If the dog was off his lead i'd say you'd be liable all right

Whispered

Your poor kid. God love him, must have had an awful shock.

I'd recommend a quick vet check up for peace of mind. Maybe let your son up with the dog so the vet can reassure him too.

Anyway with regards to whether you're liable or not I'd imagine it depends on how it happened. Was your dog off the lead? How did it happen?

joe6pack

CowboyDreams wrote: »

was the dog on a lead? how did it happen? Glad he is Ok.

Thanks.
He was on the lead but something got his attention and he darted and my son couldn't hold him.
So he did actually have his lead on at the time he was struck...but nobody was holding it.

ZiabR

It really depends on how it happened and if the dog was off the lead. I would not go handing over any money though. I would wait for the driver to return and assess the damage. Then depending on the damage I would offer to have it repaired myself. He pulled the figure of €500 out of his ass and is just chancing his arm. If he starts demanding money, I would report it to to Gardai and explain that you have offered to repair the car.

Mr_Red

Hi OP

Glad your dog is OK

First you do not pay this guy any money yet.

you need to find out exactly what happened. The Driver needs to contact his Insurance company first to report the accident, Quotes need to be estimated and his insurance company needs to contact you. I think you may be responsible if your dog went out on the road causing an accident. Im not even sure if the Gardai need to be notified. When he arrives you need to take pictures yourself of the damage too.

DBB

Unfortunately you are liable in this instance as the dog wasn't under effectual control, but as with any motor accident, he needs to get some sort of estimate for the damage, and you can nominate the garage that will do the work (though he's not obliged to use your nominated garage). He had a bit of a cheek coming up with that price.
There's also the issue of whether any damage that is done to the car was done by the impact with your dog at all... But how to prove it is another thing.
I think I'd have taken a photo last night, despite the darkness, in case the car develops a new dent in the interim, but again, how you could prove otherwise I don't know.
It may be worthwhile checking with your house insurers, they may cover this sort of liability (at least, some do in cases where the family dog damaged livestock).
I'd certainly advise that you bring your dog to the vet for a check-up, as you've no idea if there's any internal damage at this point. Glad to hear the dog survived, and hope your poor son gets over the shock soon, poor little fella :-(

BettePorter

People like that sicken my happiness! He's after hitting a dog and his first instinct is ill make a quick buck here! Aren't you supposed to notify the guards if u hit a dog? Put that to him when he comes back with his probable made up quote for damage! Surely if the dog wasn't that badly injured it was just a glancing blow. Obviously if there's a blatant dent that's up to u to ascertain whether u should pay up but on a 12 year old car who's to say and given hes already asking for a specific amount in 500 id say hes just chancing his arm! If u think so, turn it back on him and mention vet bills!

average_runner

BettePorter wrote: »

People like that sicken my happiness! He's after hitting a dog and his first instinct is ill make a quick buck here! Aren't you supposed to notify the guards if u hit a dog? Put that to him when he comes back with his probable made up quote for damage! Surely if the dog wasn't that badly injured it was just a glancing blow. Obviously if there's a blatant dent that's up to u to ascertain whether u should pay up but on a 12 year old car who's to say and given hes already asking for a specific amount in 500 id say hes just chancing his arm! If u think so, turn it back on him and mention vet bills!

Vet bills nothing to do with the driver. Its the dog i feel sorry for, as he was brought out for a walk with someone that didnt have the strength to handle him, questions for the owners of the dog. Luckily it was a dart for the road and not for a small kid. Thank god the dog is ok.

username123

BettePorter wrote: »

People like that sicken my happiness! He's after hitting a dog and his first instinct is ill make a quick buck here! Aren't you supposed to notify the guards if u hit a dog? Put that to him when he comes back with his probable made up quote for damage! Surely if the dog wasn't that badly injured it was just a glancing blow. Obviously if there's a blatant dent that's up to u to ascertain whether u should pay up but on a 12 year old car who's to say and given hes already asking for a specific amount in 500 id say hes just chancing his arm! If u think so, turn it back on him and mention vet bills!

Its not the drivers fault the dog was not under control, why should he have to suffer a damaged car because of it?

A dog could make quite a dent in a car without much damage to the dog if it landed full body against the side of it.

He wouldnt be liable for any vet bills, the dog was not under the control of the owner.

gizmo555

DBB wrote: »

and you can nominate the garage that will do the work.

Don't know where you got that idea. If you feel the estimate is too high, you could challenge it, but you certainly couldn't require the car owner to use your chosen repairer. Indeed, while the car owner's entitled to the cost of the repair, there's nothing to stop him choosing not to have it done and keeping the cash.

DBB wrote: »

He had a bit of a cheek coming up with that price.

Don't know how you can say that either - €500 wouldn't buy a lot of panel beating and painting. The owner's also entitled to reasonable compensation for reduction in value of the car. All other things being equal, two identical cars, the one damaged and repaired will be worth less.

franksm

EUR500... what a nice, round number.

Pity the guy doesn't have some empathy - unless his car really is that badly damaged.

I hit a dog recently, luckily it was okay in the end, but the emergency-stop caused the car's front left wheel to trap the dog until I moved the car a few inches forward. During which time the dog had chewed the alloy wheel. Last thing on my mind was to ask the dog owner to fix it ! FFS, some people.

As I say, EUR500 is a nice round number, I'd be taking a bit more interest in what is damaged and what it costs to fix. If paint damage, a "smart repair" could be less than EUR200. A full respray of a bumper wouldn't be more than EUR350

BettePorter

username123 wrote: »

Its not the drivers fault the dog was not under control, why should he have to suffer a damaged car because of it?

A dog could make quite a dent in a car without much damage to the dog if it landed full body against the side of it.

He wouldnt be liable for any vet bills, the dog was not under the control of the owner.

I absolutely agree! I'm talking about if this guy is taking advantage which I think he may well try to! If there is damage that's of course something the dog owner should pay for. Yet the op seems to think there wasn't yet this guy is shouting figures already.......which indicates to me he's chancing his arm. Personally, if I hit a dog , my first thought would be for the welfare of the animal and the relief I hadn't hit the child with him. I'm not trying to get the op out of paying up if there is indeed damage.

DBB

average_runner wrote: »

Its the dog i feel sorry for, as he was brought out for a walk with someone that didnt have the strength to handle him, questions for the owners of the dog. Luckily it was a dart for the road and not for a small kid. Thank god the dog is ok.

That's a bit unfair. Many adult owners, myself included, have dropped the dog's lead by accident. The kid is 13, not a small child. I'd imagine he feels crap enough without this sort of guilt trip being laid on him.
As for the "luckily it was not a small kid" comment... Really? Unless you know this dog has form in running at kids, you're stretching credibilty just a tad.
Won't somebody pleeease think of the children?!!!

Kalimah

Back in 2008 a dog ran out and hit my car broadside causing quite a bit of damage. First thing I did was try find the dog and owner as I thought I must have injured it. Didn't find either as the dog belted off somewhere. I reported it to guards and insurance and it ended up at 800 odd quid for the damage. Insurance paid but I lost some no claims bonus. Don't know how that guy came up with 500 euro out of nowhere.

DBB

gizmo555 wrote: »

Don't know where you got that idea. If you feel the estimate is too high, you could challenge it, but you certainly couldn't require the car owner to use your chosen repairer.

In fairness, I had amended my post to reflect that before you posted.

Don't know how you can say that either - €500 wouldn't buy a lot of panel beating and painting. The owner's also entitled to reasonable compensation for reduction in value of the car. All other things being equal, two identical cars, the one damaged and repaired will be worth less.

I think you missed my point. I don't dispute that the car owner is entitled to be compensated, indeed my post absolutely reflects that.
The point I was making was that the driver, minutes after the accident and in the dark, having not sought professional opinion, pulled the figure of €500 out of the air.

Mr_Red

gizmo555 wrote: »

The owner's also entitled to reasonable compensation for reduction in value of the car. All other things being equal, two identical cars, the one damaged and repaired will be worth less.

Lol no hes not , the OP would pay for the price of the repair.

OP tell the guy to contact his insurance company and for them to contact you.

Get the guy to get the car repaired if you agree on the damage and then give you the bill

_Brian

I fail to see why the driver should be more concerned about the dog than his car !
This individual through no fault of his own had his car damaged by careless control of a dog. Dog owners need to understand the implications of poor dog control.
Yes it's great the dog is fine as I feel sorry for the child who was supposed to be responsible for the dog. But the owner is left with little recourse here only pay up for the damage caused.

Nobody condones inflated prices or taking advantage but he deserves fair
Compensation for the damage caused and no whinging nor casting shady names on him for it.

Dog owners need to be responsible and to remember that not everyone is a dog lover. They need to be restrained at all times and not allowed to run wild in public. I'm sure the majority do but you see so many dogs being let off the lead in irresponsible situations where they inconvenience and terrorise the public.

I'll admit I'm tainted as our daughter was knocked down and terrorised by a loose dog in a public park. On numerous occasions I've had to chastise owners for poor control of their animals in public parks and beaches.

Dog owners need to be responsible!
If your dog causes damage because it's not controlled then you have to pay !

average_runner

DBB wrote: »

That's a bit unfair. Many adult owners, myself included, have dropped the dog's lead by accident. The kid is 13, not a small child. I'd imagine he feels crap enough without this sort of guilt trip being laid on him.
As for the "luckily it was not a small kid" comment... Really? Unless you know this dog has form in running at kids, you're stretching credibilty just a tad.
Won't somebody pleeease think of the children?!!!

A dog doesnt need form to have a go at a kid. Also wasn't saying this dog would go for a kid.

I was highlighting what could happen, and pointing out only a person that can control the dog should be bringing the dog out for a walk. Not laying a guilt trip, laying the common sense.

Accidents can happen and that's fair enough, but if your accident causes damage, you should have the respect to pay for it

Magenta

_Brian wrote: »

Dog owners need to be responsible!
If your dog causes damage because it's not controlled then you have to pay !

A guy I used to work with was driving one day and a dog owner had her dog on an extendable lead and was letting the dog walk in the middle of the road! There was a car oncoming so he had to hit the dog rather than swerve into the oncoming car.
He stopped and the dog's owner screamed at him for "being so careless" for hitting her dog and that he should have swerved- what, into an oncoming car??? Into her???

Mr_Red

_Brian wrote: »

I fail to see why the driver should be more concerned about the dog than his car !
This individual through no fault of his own had his car damaged by careless control of a dog. Dog owners need to understand the implications of poor dog control.
Yes it's great the dog is fine as I feel sorry for the child who was supposed to be responsible for the dog. But the owner is left with little recourse here only pay up for the damage caused.

Nobody condones inflated prices or taking advantage but he deserves fair
Compensation for the damage caused and no whinging nor casting shady names on him for it.

Dog owners need to be responsible and to remember that not everyone is a dog lover. They need to be restrained at all times and not allowed to run wild in public. I'm sure the majority do but you see so many dogs being let off the lead in irresponsible situations where they inconvenience and terrorise the public.

I'll admit I'm tainted as our daughter was knocked down and terrorised by a loose dog in a public park. On numerous occasions I've had to chastise owners for poor control of their animals in public parks and beaches.

Dog owners need to be responsible!
If your dog causes damage because it's not controlled then you have to pay !

Brian Brian Brian

Nobody is contesting that the OP is responsible for the Damage.

It how the Driver pulled out the Quote for damage out of his arse is whats funny.

If a cat sat on the bonnet of my car and put a 1mm scrape on it can i get the owner to pay me €10,000 because That's the cost I think the damage is worth?

OP needs receipts and paperwork and not deal directly with the owner

DBB

_Brian wrote: »

Nobody condones inflated prices or taking advantage but he deserves fair
Compensation for the damage caused and no whinging nor casting shady names on him for it.

Whinging?
I'm not seeing anyone whinging... I'm not surprised that some people in the Animals and Pets forum would express huge concern for the dog and even say that they would not pursue the owner, what with it being the Animals and Pets forum. But to cast their feelings aside as whinging is really unfair.
And it's not the man's right to be compensated that's being called into question. It's the manner in which he magicked a substantial sum out of the air that people are casting shady names on him for.... Justifiably so.
Had he simply said he'd be looking to get the car repaired, and would come back to op with a quote, there wouldn't have been the slightest suggestion of shadiness.

stoneill

Is there any other witnesses - otherwise it's his word against yours (or your sons in this case).
If there is damage, who knows when that happened, he could be looking for you to repair damage that was already there.
Pay him nothing, he needs to go through his insurance, and you should go to the Gardai to report it as if he does you will be asked to report anyway.

gizmo555

Mr_Red wrote: »

Lol no hes not , the OP would pay for the price of the repair.

LOL, I have in fact claimed and been paid for reduction in value of my car on top of the actual cost of repairs from the other party's insurance. If I recall correctly, the usual rule of thumb is 10% of the repair costs.

Anyway, we're a bit off topic. I'd agree with the thrust of most posts that the dog owner's liable, but you'd want proof that the damage was actually caused by the dog and that the repair costs are reasonable.

DBB

average_runner wrote: »

I was highlighting what could happen, and pointing out only a person that can control the dog should be bringing the dog out for a walk. Not laying a guilt trip, laying the common sense.

Indeed, and I was pointing out that anyone, of any age can be taken by surprise if the dog suddenly yoinks the lead out of your hand. It's happened to me, it's happened to many adults.
You, on the other hand, appear to be suggesting that the dog's escaping was because it was a child that was walking him. Not only is this unfair, I'm sure the way you phrased it would make the kid feel even worse than he does now.
Indeed, it could surely be argued that it's just as well the young fella let go of the lead, as he could have been dragged out into the road if he hadn't.

Tordelback

_Brian wrote: »

I fail to see why the driver should be more concerned about the dog than his car !

Maybe because he's a human being and should have some empathy for the animal and its owners thaty outweighs the superficial condition of his material possessions?

Yes, the law is clear that it's the owner's fault, and thankfully no-one was hurt, but being a cold-hearted dick into the bargain is unnecessary.

Mr_Red

gizmo555 wrote: »

LOL, I have in fact claimed and been paid for reduction in value of my car on top of the actual cost of repairs from the other party's insurance.

Yes Via insurance company . You didnt go up to the guy as ask for the money.

You went through insurance.

you (might) get that if :

1. Going through insurance

2. take out a civil case

gizmo555

Mr_Red wrote: »

Yes Via insurance company . You didnt go up to the guy as ask for the money.

Same principle applies, whether or not an insurance company's paying.

gimmick

average_runner wrote: »

Vet bills nothing to do with the driver. Its the dog i feel sorry for, as he was brought out for a walk with someone that didnt have the strength to handle him, questions for the owners of the dog. Luckily it was a dart for the road and not for a small kid. Thank god the dog is ok.

average_runner wrote: »

A dog doesnt need form to have a go at a kid. Also wasn't saying this dog would go for a kid.

I was highlighting what could happen, and pointing out only a person that can control the dog should be bringing the dog out for a walk. Not laying a guilt trip, laying the common sense.

Accidents can happen and that's fair enough, but if your accident causes damage, you should have the respect to pay for it

Nice posts these. My dog, a cocker, has taken me by surprise plenty times and taken me off balance. Luckily it was for nothing more than a butterfly or an emergency sniff at at a lump of grass we have just passed. I am not exactly a weakling, so it does happen.

To basically tell the father of the child and owner of the dog that he did not take due care is being pretty nasty imo. He is looking for advice on a situation he is unsure of how to proceed, not look to be judged from the sidelines.

To echo this, unfortunatley it is something a co worker got stung by before. Her lab was knocked down and killed a few years ago. She thought her dog was missing until a notice was put up in the local shop. She responded to the notice and was slapped with a hefty panel beating bill as well as a shock of a dead dog and vet (or whoever) bill for cremating the dog.

Dyr

Mr_Red wrote: »

Brian Brian Brian

Nobody is contesting that the OP is responsible for the Damage.

It how the Driver pulled out the Quote for damage out of his arse is whats funny.

If a cat sat on the bonnet of my car and put a 1mm scrape on it can i get the owner to pay me €10,000 because That's the cost I think the damage is worth?

OP needs receipts and paperwork and not deal directly with the owner

Pretty sure cat owners are not legally liable for damages caused by their pet

Its a kind of legal recognition that cats are uncontrollable agents of evil

BelleOfTheBall

He can claim off your house insurance I think pets are covered for this.dont hand any money until you have facts

Lemlin

gizmo555 wrote: »

LOL, I have in fact claimed and been paid for reduction in value of my car on top of the actual cost of repairs from the other party's insurance. If I recall correctly, the usual rule of thumb is 10% of the repair costs.

You have been paid depreciation for your vehicle. The percentage amount depends on the age of the car and the damage sustained. For example, a lesser percentage is paid for cosmetic damage than structural damage to a vehicle. A higher percentage would also be paid for a 2012 vehicle as opposed to a 2008 vehicle. It is rare that depreciation would be paid on a vehicle 6 years or older.

Judging by the responses thus far, I would imagine I am the only Certified Insurance Practicioner to reply.

The best thing the OP can do is contact his house insurer. They are in a position to advise the OP correctly and ensure that the third party provides the support documentation which he needs to. The third party is entitled to go to a garage of his choice for a quote but the OP's insurer is also entitled to have this quote reviewed by a motor assessor to ensure that the damage is consistent and the amount is fair.

Also involving the insurance company does not mean that the OP's No Claims Bonus will be effected, most insurance companies will complete an investigation and then allow a Policy Holder the chance to settle privately with the third party if they wish to. They are willing to take the hit for investigation costs such as an assessor.

The OP does need to be very careful. There is nothing to stop this man developing a "soft tissue injury" and claiming personal injury. That's where the expense will really occur.

joe6pack

Hi gang,

Thanks for all the suggestions it's clear to me now we are liable for the damage and that's okay.We are relatively new to dog ownership (2.5 yrs) and the young lad is very upset but I've explained to him it's definitely not his fault as it was an accident.

I suppose I'll see what this guy has in mind tonight but after having a quick look on done deal a 2002 mondeo are all under a €1000 so I'd only really be prepared to give him €250-300 max.

Main thing is that my son ,the driver and the dog are all okay.

Thanks again for the help

Pumpkinseeds

Poor dog and child. Where there any other witnesses to the incident? I'm just wondering how the guy would have a claim for damage to his car that may or may not have been caused by hitting the dog. There is only his word that it was the accident that caused the damage.

MayoAreMagic

Tordelback
Maybe because he's a human being and should have some empathy for the animal and its owners thaty outweighs the superficial condition of his material possessions?
Yes, the law is clear that it's the owner's fault, and thankfully no-one was hurt, but being a cold-hearted dick into the bargain is unnecessary.

Was he though? Maybe after coming back with the child and his dog and could see they were both fine (the fact that the dog is fine would indicate he is a responsible driver) and the €500 was just an estimate for the OP as to what to expect - which could yet be proven entirely valid. He did show them the damage straight away without leaving the scene etc. We are only getting one version here, which is coming second hand from a child whose dog just got hit by a car, let's not forget. I don't think he has done a whole lot wrong to be honest. The only thing people seem to have an issue with is his quote of €500, but we don't know if he said 'I have seen these things add up to' in just passing conversation or what exactly was said.

ForEffsSake

Hi Joe6pack,
Do you have health insurance for your dog? Often accidental damage caused by the dog is covered under this insurance - I know it is under my dog's insurance.
No matter who was walking the dog or what it does, unfortunately you are liable for any damage they cause. All part of the joys of dog ownership!
Cats are exempt as they are deemed as 'free spirits' by insurance companies apparently.

Glad to hear you're all ok and in the grand scheme of things, nobody was hurt.

Obviously get the man to give a proper quote for the damage - hopefully it'll be less than the 500 he quoted,

Stheno

joe6pack wrote: »

I suppose I'll see what this guy has in mind tonight but after having a quick look on done deal a 2002 mondeo are all under a €1000 so I'd only really be prepared to give him €250-300 max.
p

Op that's not how it works, I've a car worth about that much and damage to the paintwork cost €500 to put right.

Either contact your home insurance and get him to provide quotes etc, or ask him for three quotes and then agree on a sum to repair the car if you don't go through insurance

Lemlin

joe6pack wrote: »

Hi gang,

Thanks for all the suggestions it's clear to me now we are liable for the damage and that's okay.We are relatively new to dog ownership (2.5 yrs) and the young lad is very upset but I've explained to him it's definitely not his fault as it was an accident.

I suppose I'll see what this guy has in mind tonight but after having a quick look on done deal a 2002 mondeo are all under a €1000 so I'd only really be prepared to give him €250-300 max.

Main thing is that my son ,the driver and the dog are all okay.

Thanks again for the help

Please keep in mind that the driver has 24 months for injuries to "develop". Just because he says he is fine now, doesn't confirm he will be in a month.

This lad has already tried to claim €500 from you unfairly so I'd be contacting my insurance.

Tordelback

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Was he though? Maybe after coming back with the child and his dog and could see they were both fine (the fact that the dog is fine would indicate he is a responsible driver) and the €500 was just an estimate for the OP as to what to expect...

I wasn't actually suggesting the specific driver in the OP's case was a dick, I was referring to this contention:

_Brian wrote: »

I fail to see why the driver should be more concerned about the dog than his car !

I do see why a driver should be more concerned about injury and distress to living creatures than a dent on his bloody car.

Steppenwolfe

Why is the dog owner autimatically seen as at fault here. If it had been a child there would have been an enquiry in to the circumstances. When i was learning to drive I was told to always allow for the unexpected like kids or dogs running in to my path. I walk my dog in a residential estate and I see drivers driving carelessly all the time. Flying around with no heed to what might be around the next cornor. Don't even start me off on mobile phones. If it was me I'd want to see a police report before he got a penny.

Stheno

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Why is the dog owner autimatically seen as at fault here. If it had been a child there would have been an enquiry in to the circumstances. When i was learning to drive I was told to always allow for the unexpected like kids or dogs running in to my path. I walk my dog in a residential estate and I see drivers driving carelessly all the time. Flying around with no heed to what might be around the next cornor. Don't even start me off on mobile phones. If it was me I'd want to see a police report before he got a penny.

Dog owners are legally obliged under the control of dogs act to ensure that their dogs are under effective control at all times

Steppenwolfe

Stheno wrote: »

Dog owners are legally obliged under the control of dogs act to ensure that their dogs are under effective control at all times

I know that and it's a good law. There are also good laws regarding drivers in control of a vehicle. If the driver in case had been drunk and speeding would it still be the dog owners responsibility to pay for the damage?

dogluver

To be honest I think the driver has a good case. A child at 13 shouldn't be walking a dog by themselves on a public footpath anyway especially if its getting dark. There should be a adult with them. This might not have happened then.

DBB

dogluver wrote: »

To be honest I think the driver has a good case. A child at 13 shouldn't be walking a dog by themselves on a public footpath anyway especially if its getting dark. There should be a adult with them. This might not have happened then.

There's no legal backing to what age the child should be when walking a dog, unless the dog is a breed or cross from the restricted breed list. And surely the child can do whatever he likes with or without a dog on a public footpath, as long as it's legal?!
I personally wouldn't be getting into too much of a flap about a 13 year old boy walking a dog in a housing estate or built-up area. Either way, it's a moot point. This same scenario has happened many an adult dog-walker in broad daylight.
Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge of liability than I could advise as to the following, but depending upon what happened, there may be a possibility that if you go the "official" route with this, that the driver may have to accept some proportion of liability. As already pointed out, depending on the circumstances he should have been able to stop, especially if it's a built-up area you live in? If the dog ran headlong into his car and there was genuinely nothing the driver could have reasonably done to avoid him, it's a different story.

Lemlin

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I know that and it's a good law. There are also good laws regarding drivers in control of a vehicle. If the driver in case had been drunk and speeding would it still be the dog owners responsibility to pay for the damage?

Yes, the proximate cause of the accident is still the dog which was out of control. The accident would not have happened if the dog was under control.

If a driver was drunk and speeding it does not effect liability in this case. It would also be up to the Gardai to seek a prosecution but it would have no impact on this type of Road Traffic Accident.

Why is the dog owner autimatically seen as at fault here. If it had been a child there would have been an enquiry in to the circumstances. When i was learning to drive I was told to always allow for the unexpected like kids or dogs running in to my path. I walk my dog in a residential estate and I see drivers driving carelessly all the time. Flying around with no heed to what might be around the next cornor. Don't even start me off on mobile phones. If it was me I'd want to see a police report before he got a penny.

The Gardai will only complete a report on a serious accident or where there is a possible prosecution. The only possible prosecution here would be for the dog owner. No Garda report would be completed on an incident like this. The Gardai will leave same to "civil remedy".

DBB wrote: »

There's no legal backing to what age the child should be when walking a dog, unless the dog is a breed or cross from the restricted breed list. And surely the child can do whatever he likes with or without a dog on a public footpath, as long as it's legal?!
I personally wouldn't be getting into too much of a flap about a 13 year old boy walking a dog in a housing estate or built-up area. Either way, it's a moot point. This same scenario has happened many an adult dog-walker in broad daylight.
Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge of liability than I could advise as to the following, but depending upon what happened, there may be a possibility that if you go the "official" route with this, that the driver may have to accept some proportion of liability. As already pointed out, depending on the circumstances he should have been able to stop, especially if it's a built-up area you live in? If the dog ran headlong into his car and there was genuinely nothing the driver could have reasonably done to avoid him, it's a different story.

The driver will not have to accept a proportion of liability. How could you find negligence against the driver? The OP has admitted that his child did not have control of the dog. The dog was the proximate cause of the accident. Ask yourself this, if the dog had not run onto the road, would the accident have occured? No, it would not.

If this was a large case, with an injured child, the driver would be responsible for some proportion of liability because, as you say, the rules of the road say he should be able to stop for an "emergency". A dog breaking free from a child and running onto the road would not be classed by the RTA as an "emergency". I would also add that a high amount of contributory negligence would also be taken from any settlement to a child who ran in front of a car.

sillysmiles

AFAIK your insurance (OP) should cover your dog for being out of control and causing an accident. And skipping through all the flap about whether the driver should be worried about your dog (IMO no) or whether your son should have been walking the dog (imo yes, why not) the bones of it is that your dog was out of control and caused an accident. That's what insurance is there for.

Hopefully your dog is ok and your son is not to shook up about it. Accidents happen that's why you have insurance to pay for the damages.

joe6pack

The driver came back to my home yesterday evening and showed me the damage which was IMO very minimal (remember the dog walked away from the accident without even a limp!) and then presented me with a quotation from a garage for €1600 roughly twice the value of the car according to current prices on done deal.
I explained to him that this was far beyond my ability to pay to which he became angry and told me I had until this Friday to pay him or he would get the Gaurds involved.
I told him I would contact my home insurance to see what they'd say and be in touch.
I called them this morning and thankfully it is covered under my home policy which was a relief.I've sent them the quote and photos of the damage and they have appointed an independent vehicle assessor to go out and verify that the damage being claimed for matches up with the incident.

So a lot of frustration but it's all being sorted now.

Accidents will happen from time to time but personally I don't see any reason why a 13 year-old shouldn't be out walking his dog.

tom_tarbucket

joe6pack wrote: »

The driver came back to my home yesterday evening and showed me the damage which was IMO very minimal (remember the dog walked away from the accident without even a limp!) and then presented me with a quotation from a garage for €1600 roughly twice the value of the car according to current prices on done deal.
I explained to him that this was far beyond my ability to pay to which he became angry and told me I had until this Friday to pay him or he would get the Gaurds involved.
I told him I would contact my home insurance to see what they'd say and be in touch.
I called them this morning and thankfully it is covered under my home policy which was a relief.I've sent them the quote and photos of the damage and they have appointed an independent vehicle assessor to go out and verify that the damage being claimed for matches up with the incident.

So a lot of frustration but it's all being sorted now.

Accidents will happen from time to time but personally I don't see any reason why a 13 year-old shouldn't be out walking his dog.

Is this lad that called to your house a dodgy character or a bit of a scum bag etc ?

He sounds low quality, 1600 euro for a small bump on a POS car, he sounds like a chancer.

truedoom

Glad it is all being sorted by an independent assessor.

Will make things easier.

Bet your glad you have home insurance

Stheno

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

Is this lad that called to your house a dodgy character or a bit of a scum bag etc ?

He sounds low quality, 1600 euro for a small bump on a POS car, he sounds like a chancer.

Honestly Op is best leaving it to the insurers, their assessors will have seen this a million times over and will decide what the appropriate compensation should be.