Puppy Hit By Careless Driver

peasant

Never mind the driver...why would the OP be hugging the careless dog minder over the dead dog's body at the vets.

Call me cynical...but to me that's the fishiest part of the whole story.

Well written though ..some journo stirring it up?

andreac

magentis wrote: »

Thanks for the correction,but I think its clear that the dog was not under control if it ran out into the roadway in front of a car,has it been on a lead,it would still be alive.

Its easy for a dog to be distracted,though an owner might feel his dog is under effectual control.a lead eliminates this risk.

Its akin to say a rottweiler or other dog on the dangerous dogs list,an owner might feel a dog is no danger to anyone and have it unmuzzled in public,other people are not privy to this fact,but the law clearly states the dog should be muzzled.

I never said the dog was under control I was just saying it wasn't the law to be on a lead. I do agree that most dogs should be kept on leads when close to roads etc.
Also it's not the dangerous dog list, it's the restricted breeds list, 2 very different laws.
I own rotties so I get a little upset when people call it a dangerous dog list because that's not what it is.;)

FishOnABike

Gerry T wrote: »

They might be aware but are still kids, playing chasing or running after a ball they make mistakes. Drivers have to be aware and slow down in these areas.

Accidents are not always due to driver carelessness or inappropriate speed. Sometimes there is little a driver could have reasonably done to avoid an accident.

I witnessed one incident where a driver came to full stop to avoid a young dog who had run onto the road and was chasing passing vehicles. When the driver stopped the dog went back into the soft margin but when the driver moved off slowly the dog ran out again and went under the rear wheel of the pickup.

Animals are unpredictable, especially an excitable puppy and need to be kept under effective control in public.

I have an older, very placid dog who walks by my side but will still always have her on a lead and stand in to the side of the road, holding the lead short when traffic is passing.

DBB

Okay folks,
Can we stop the "what if it was a child" posts, and all posts relating to this?
The salient points here are.. Did the driver report the accident to the guards? He is legally obliged to do so.
The owner/handler is responsible for any damage caused by their loose dog (ie not under effectual control).
We can only surmise as to the honesty of the driver, or whether it's a scam, or how the insurance companies will deal with this as presumably they'll have more info than we do, or indeed as to whether this is a genuine thread (I'm not convinced it is but open to correction).
So... Children running into the road bear NO relation to this story. Please stop arguing this moot point in this thread.
Thanks,
DBB

njs030

DBB you said the driver is obliged to report it, I've actually checked this in the rta and can't find it so would you mind providing a link please?

As far as I knew there isn't any legal obligation to report hitting an animal on the road to the gardai unless it's caused injury to people, I'd be interested to read the actual law?


Edit-are you thinking along the lines of an accident report in general? Rather than animals in particular?

DBB

S. 106 of the 1961 Road Traffic Act... It does not relate to animals, but to accidents involving persons or property.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/106/enacted/en/html#sec106

I am almost certain, and I can't link to it because I haven't gone looking , that because dogs are licensed, they are considered "property" for the purposes of various pieces of legislation that don't specifically mention animals/dogs.
I know I read years ago, that this is a benefit of being a licensed animal... It gives them certain "rights", one of which is that their involvement in RTAs that results in them being damaged must be reported by the driver of the vehicle involved.

njs030

DBB wrote: »

S. 106 of the 1961 Road Traffic Act... It does not relate to animals, but to accidents involving persons or property.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/106/enacted/en/html#sec106

I am almost certain, and I can't link to it because I haven't gone looking , that because dogs are licensed, they are considered "property" for the purposes of various pieces of legislation that don't specifically mention animals/dogs.
I know I read years ago, that this is a benefit of being a licensed animal... It gives them certain "rights", one of which is that their involvement in RTAs that results in them being damaged must be reported by the driver of the vehicle involved.

Yeah I see what you mean. I wasn't being smart I was genuinely interested!!
I would also think dogs would be counted as property especially ones that have licenses and microchips.

EagererBeaver

Gerry T wrote: »

If your not paying attention you are driving without due care and attention and that's an offence. Drive in that circumstance is breaking the law, that's what. Careless driving is not an accident.

Hitting a dog is not, of itself, evidence of careless driving.

uck51js9zml2yt

I killed a dog a few months ago that slipped its lead just as I got parallell to it and its owner.

While I had every sympathy for the owner, he was lucky that no damage had been done to my car or he would have received a bill.

While your driver may or may not be pulling a fast one, hes in no way a careless driver for hitting an out of control dog.

jimmycrackcorm

DBB wrote:

I know I read years ago, that this is a benefit of being a licensed animal... It gives them certain "rights", one of which is that their involvement in RTAs that results in them being damaged must be reported by the driver of the vehicle involved.

Which raises another question, was the puppy licensed?

DBB

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Which raises another question, was the puppy licensed?

I'm not sure it has to be licensed, rather than license-able... If you see what I mean?

99problems

Gerry T wrote:

There's every comparison, if a child playing ran out between parked cars or swerved on a bike a driver would need to react and stop. If he couldn't for a dog then he couldn't for a child. If an insurance company is not afforded a chance to view the damage and have their own assessor value the damage they wont pay or greatly reduce the payment. A driver has to drive at the appropriate speed, its irrelevant what the speed limit is, its down to weather conditions, viability, condition of the road, how likely it would be that someone or something could come in front of them...The driver is at fault.

Ok , A dog runs into traffic causing a driver to swerve to avoid it because he is swerving to avoid a dog he doesn't notice a child stepping off the footpath and he hits her. Who's fault is it ?

DBB

99problems wrote: »

Ok , A dog runs into traffic causing a driver to swerve to avoid it because he is swerving to avoid a dog he doesn't notice a child stepping off the footpath and he hits her. Who's fault is it ?

As per the above mod warning, please stop the line of argument involving dogs, kids, dogs vs kids, and any derivation thereof.
Thanks.
DBB

99problems

Oh sorry

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Gerry T wrote: »

. The driver wasn't paying attention.

Do you have additional information that we don't?

golfcaptain

Rules of the Road (2015), p168, first paragraph seems relevant: http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf.

golfcaptain

notjustsweet wrote: »

That link doesn't work maybe you could quote it?

"If the accident damages property only, and there is a Garda in the immediate vicinity, you must report it to the Garda. If there is no Garda available, you must provide this information to the owner or the person in charge of the property. If, for any reason, neither a Garda nor the owner is immediately available, you must give all relevant information at a Garda station as soon as reasonably possible."

I believe I read earlier in the thread that a dog falls is treated as property according to the law.

njs030

golfcaptain wrote: »

"If the accident damages property only, and there is a Garda in the
immediate vicinity, you must report it to the Garda. If there is no Garda
available, you must provide this information to the owner or the person
in charge of the property. If, for any reason, neither a Garda nor the
owner is immediately available, you must give all relevant information at
a Garda station as soon as reasonably possible."

I believe I read earlier in the thread that a dog falls is treated as property according to the law.

Oh OK yes that was said earlier by DBB and myself.

chooo chooo

People cremate dogs.Well that is a new one for me

893bet

What vet bills were there for a dead dog?

anewme

chooo chooo wrote: »

People cremate dogs.Well that is a new one for me

I know someone who has their beloved dogs ashes back and keeps them in a little casket in the living room.

Dog was the last gift from her Father (now deceased) and brings back very happy memories of both Dad and Dog.

It's been very recent, but the intention will be to scatter dogs ashes on dogs favourite beach for walks.

I'm a dog lover, so I don't find this weird or strange at all. To me it's a family member who has been part of your family for 14 or 15 years.

uck51js9zml2yt

chooo chooo wrote: »

People cremate dogs.Well that is a new one for me

My son asked was the doggy going to be put in a box and go to the church:)
He had just been at his granny's funeral.

Shivi111

Sometimes people astonish me. Having hit & killed a dog, even if totally not at fault, dog ran out etc. it amazes me that someone would be so unfeeling. What happened to 'accidents happen'?

OP please don't take the advice here to go after dog walker in some way, sometimes dogs escape, sometimes they get onto the road, & sometimes they get run over. It's horrible for all involved. Personally, if I hit a dog I'd be heartbroken, I would be the one to make contact with the owner and I'd accept that any damage to my car was part of the sad accident, suck it up & move on.

OP, if I were you in this case I'd pass it all on to the insurance company and spend no more of my time thinking about it.

Knine

Shivi111 wrote: »

Personally, if I hit a dog I'd be heartbroken, I would be the one to make contact with the owner and I'd accept that any damage to my car was part of the sad accident, suck it up & move on. .

I am an absolute dog lover & would be absolutely heartbroken if I hit a dog however with all due respect & with huge insurance prices & hikes for claims, no way would I accept any damage to my car that was caused by some one elses most likely irresponsibility. That fact would have no bearing on how sad & upset I would feel if I killed someones pet.

pilly

893bet wrote:

What vet bills were there for a dead dog?

250 euros for a cremation.

Prinks

chooo chooo wrote: »

People cremate dogs.Well that is a new one for me

How do you get rid of the body if you don't have a garden to bury it in?

annascott

So sorry for your loss. It is hard enough to come to terms with what has happened to your puppy without you being bullied as well.
The man's attitude to you and lack of remorse for killing your dog is reprehensible.
It is unlikely that the accident caused the damage to his car. Without proof he should not have a case.
Wishing you strength and courage to face what has happened and get through this.

chooo chooo

Prinks wrote: »

How do you get rid of the body if you don't have a garden to bury it in?

No idea never thought too much about it. I have just never heard of pets being cremated.

GrumpyMe

If you run into a loose cow, I think, the law says that the owner is/may be liable.
However:-
The Control of Dogs Act, 1986 appears to cover dogs only and appears not to cover damage to property.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/act/13/enacted/en/html

Liability of owner for damage by dog.
21. -- (1) The owner of a dog shall be liable in damages for damage caused in an attack on any person by the dog and for injury done by it to any livestock; and it shall not be necessary for the person seeking such damages to show a previous mischievous propensity in the dog, or the owner's knowledge of such previous propensity, or to show that such injury or damage was attributable to neglect on the part of the owner.
(2) Where livestock are injured by a dog on land on to which they had strayed, and either the dog belonged to the occupier of the land or its presence on the land was authorised by the occupier, a person shall not be liable under this section in respect of injury done to the livestock, unless the person caused the dog to attack the livestock.
(3) A person is liable in damages for any damage caused by a dog kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing thereon only in accordance with the rules of law relating to liability for negligence.
(4) (a) Any damage or injury for which a person is made liable under this section shall be deemed to be attributable to a wrong within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act, 1961 , and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly.
(b) Sections 11 (2) (a) and 11 (2) (b) of the Statute of Limitations, 1957 , shall apply to such damage.

So I wonder if there is other legislation that trumps "CoDA,1986".

DBB

Yes. The Road Traffic Act 1961. I posted it above
The Control of Dogs Act isn't relevant in this context.