Collision : Car and dog. Dog owner's liability

RITAWEB

Looking for a bit of advise a women killed my dog by speeding the other night she never said anything about damage to her car a guard turned up at my door last night with a bill for 471 euro our dog schitzu a tiny one at that how could he do that much damage have I got a leg to stand on and another question when a guard comes to your house are they ment to come in pairs have a feeling this quard knows this woman

nuac

Mod
Title changed from "Advice" for clarity
Damage to car or dog is a civil matter. Unusual for Gardái to call to one party seeking damages
Leaving open for general discussion subject to forum rule re legal advice

Peregrinus

I agree with nuac. It is not the guard's role to be involved in pressing a civil claim for damages on behalf of the claimant. Could be a guard who is a friend of the claimant doing her a favour.

Still, you may have a problem. It's your job to keep your dog under proper control. You give no details of how the accident occurred (beyond saying that the driver was speeding) but if your dog was loose on the public road you aren't in a great position, liability-wise.

Check if your household insurance covers you for public liability in relation to household pets (or, if you have pet insurance, of course check if that does). If you're covered, send the claim on to your insurer and tell the claimant that you have done so. Do not send this message back through the guards - you should take the position that the civil claim is not a matter that the guards should be involved in.

You do have the option of reporting the driver for speeding/dangerous driving/careless driving. As you give no details of the incident, it's impossible to say whether there is any mileage in this, plus of course you might have difficulty with evidence - were there any witnesses? So I'd think twice about this - if the dispute escalates your position may not be all that strong.

SeaFields

Its interesting given all that has happened within the gardai that you would still have a Garda trying to use his influence in such manner. I suspect those actions could be reported to the Garda ombudsman?

That aside, as mentioned your responsibility is to keep the dog under control so you are liable for the damages unfortunately. And while the amount may seem large relatively speaking, small tips in cars these days can run into big money quickly.

ELM327

You are liable for the damage. Simples.

The garda may have to investigate if the driver reported the incident to them.

TomOnBoard

RITAWEB wrote: »

Looking for a bit of advise a women killed my dog by speeding the other night she never said anything about damage to her car a guard turned up at my door last night with a bill for 471 euro our dog schitzu a tiny one at that how could he do that much damage have I got a leg to stand on and another question when a guard comes to your house are they ment to come in pairs have a feeling this quard knows this woman

1. How could you prove she was speeding? So, I'm not sure that's going to help you.
2. Hitting a dog (even a small one) at speed is basically like hitting a brick.
3. Generally, dog owner is liable.
4. Guards coming to the door is a bit unnerving. I'd be pissed off if that was done to me. Sounds like someone is using undue influence. And the Guard is definitely out of order to use his/her powers in this way.
5. Is the alleged damage fully described in the bill? Were photographs taken? Can someone you know assess whether the damage seems likely? For example some lower frontal damage is likely; a cracked windscreen is highly unikely.
6. Assuming photos were taken and/or there's a witness to the damage occurring, €471 is not very much to have to shell out, assuming youre not being scammed.


Have a look at this previous thread:

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057705739/1

TomOnBoard

ELM327 wrote: »

You are liable for the damage. Simples.

The garda may have to investigate if the driver reported the incident to them.

Perhaps Garda had to investigate in some way, although it seems unlikely for a dog/car collision- Surely they are busy with other more important matters like hunting down scrotes attacking elderly ppl at home. Regardless, there's NO WAY a Guard should have turned up with a bill.

PlaneSpeeking

RITAWEB wrote: »

Looking for a bit of advise a women killed my dog by speeding the other night she never said anything about damage to her car a guard turned up at my door last night with a bill for 471 euro our dog schitzu a tiny one at that how could he do that much damage have I got a leg to stand on and another question when a guard comes to your house are they ment to come in pairs have a feeling this quard knows this woman

Sorry for loss and report that Garda to GSOC or similar.

Definitely not AGS remit that - unless he wants to be a bailiff ?

And OT I know as it's not legal - what sort of scumbag kills a pet and then sends a bill with a Garda ? Special place in hell for them.

Edit - can you sue them for the cost of the dog ? Irreplaceable family member of course but might make them think again.

wexie

RITAWEB wrote: »

a bill for 471 euro our dog schitzu a tiny one at that how could he do that much damage have

That's really not a lot of damage to be honest. That sounds like perhaps a small crack in a bumper or something.

I once ran over a hare and it cost over a grand to set right

wexie

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Edit - can you sue them for the cost of the dog ? Irreplaceable family member of course but might make them think again.

If the dog was out unsupervised were it could get run over I wouldn't think that would fly?

LucyIrish06

OP could you give a bit more detail as to what happened ?
Was your dog running around loose ? was it on your property or on a main road ?
Did you have a license for your dog (Another thing they can throw at you)
Was there pictures taken of the "damage" (I really dont think a small dog would cause that much damage to be honest)

I really feel for you loosing your little dog, I would be heartbroken if something happened to mine.
Really hope you feel better soon, maybe another little puppy is in order ??

Kintarō Hattori

I wonder did the guard come with a bill or simply said that the driver has a bill for the said amount. The OP has been a little loose with details so I wouldn't be taking it for gospel that a guard turned up with a bill.

Also in regards to the amount due. A good few months back I had a very small little dent put in my car. It looked somewhat like a dimple if you will. To fix the panel that it was on would have cost about €450. The dog most likely caused bodywork damage and this is expensive to fix properly.

Pat Mustard

ELM327 wrote: »

You are liable for the damage. Simples.

The garda may have to investigate if the driver reported the incident to them.

Mod:

All of the salient facts are not in the OP, so it is not possible to determine liability. There is no reasonable basis to say whether one party or another was liable or whether liability should be apportioned between parties. Without the facts, it's just guesswork.

Even if all of the salients facts were in the OP (which they are not), the forum charter does not allow legal advice. In the above circumstances, advising as to liability amounts to legal advice. Please don't give legal advice.

Please do not reply to this post.

ganmo

Just to say the guards may get involved as op's dog wasn't under control a prosecution under the control of dogs act is a possibility

CeilingFly

Surely this is a civil matter.

I'd make a report to the local sargent to ask why a garda in uniform acted in an official capacity and handed you a bill from a third party.

I have a few people who owe me money - will the gardai call to their businesses on my behalf.? - I think not.

PlaneSpeeking

ganmo wrote: »

Just to say the guards may get involved as op's dog wasn't under control a prosecution under the control of dogs act is a possibility

And in a similar vein, the car driver may be at fault for speeding.

Lets not forget, they killed a pet.

ELM327

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And in a similar vein, the car driver may be at fault for speeding.

Lets not forget, they killed a pet.

False.
If an uncontrolled dog is on the loose, the speeding should not be linked to any causation as the negligence is on the dog owner for not having their dog under control


not legal advice

ganmo

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And in a similar vein, the car driver may be at fault for speeding.

Lets not forget, they killed a pet.

The owner of the dog failed their pet.

How would you prove the van’s speed?
The proof of the dogs owner failure to control their pet is unfortunatly the dogs body

Dial Hard

A dog ran out in front of my dad last year. It was in a built-up area and my dad wasn't speeding but the dog had to be put down and my dad's car looked like he'd hit a brick wall. Over 2 grands worth of damage done. The dog's owner was liable as the dog wasn't under their control and their house insurance covered the cost.

It was a horrible situation for everyone; the family was heartbroken over the loss of their dog and my dad felt terrible even though there was nothing he could have done. If the damage had only been a couple of hundred quid he would have just covered the cost himself, but it wasn't.

beachhead

Dog loose on the road = owners responsibility.Guard calling to the door = not unusual,they do it all the time and not always as a "friend" of the complainant.However they can not enforce a bill for any damage caused.This is a civil matter = no personal injuries were caused.Better to settle up,assuming a scam is not in progress.A summons for loose dog with/without dog licence is a possibiity

wexie

ganmo wrote: »

How would you prove the van’s speed?

Aside from the fact that you can't prove the speed it's very unlikely the outcome would have been different to a dog the size of a Shih Tzu if speeding hadn't been a factor.

You might be able to argue that perhaps the driver might have been able to avoid the dog (which could have had an even worse outcome, my wife just totaled her car having to avoid another driver on the wrong side of the road :mad:).

But the only thing we know for sure would have avoided all of this is for the dog to have been under effective control, somewhere other than the road.

El Tarangu

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Lets not forget, they killed a pet.

I have dogs, and would heartbroken if one were to be hit by a car, but your assertions are purely based on emotive arguments, and have no legal basis whatsoever.

Claw Hammer

The OP can always get another dog, but that car will carry the damage for the rest of its life.

D3V!L

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The OP can always get another dog, but that car will carry the damage for the rest of its life.

What a callous comment :mad:

Pkiernan

I wonder when dog owners will be held to account for the actions of their dogs.
It's the typical Irish attitude. All laws no order.


Regarding the op, it would be interesting to know why the bill for damages was delivered by a Garda.

bobbyss

RITAWEB wrote:

Looking for a bit of advise a women killed my dog by speeding the other night she never said anything about damage to her car a guard turned up at my door last night with a bill for 471 euro our dog schitzu a tiny one at that how could he do that much damage have I got a leg to stand on and another question when a guard comes to your house are they ment to come in pairs have a feeling this quard knows this woman

Just wondering if garda ever mentioned a dog licence in all of this? And possible fine if you didn't have one?

Eggs For Dinner

Pkiernan wrote: »

I wonder when dog owners will be held to account for the actions of their dogs.
It's the typical Irish attitude. All laws no order.
.

True, my dog is controlled, licenced, chipped, neutered, vet insured and liability insured. Wife is doing me next

TomOnBoard

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

True, my dog is controlled, licenced, chipped, neutered, vet insured and liability insured. Wife is doing me next

What????

Your wife is only neutering you now??

Mine neutered me the day she married me almost 40 years ago!!! Ive been totally powerless since...

:cool::cool:

mrsbeebee

Working in claims I've often heard of gardai doing this and its generally well meaning in an effort to help the parties resolve the matter without involving the insurance company. Obviously I dont know if that is the situation here but that is my experience. It probably isn't a good idea on their part. I would suggest you notify your household or pet insurer asap so as not to breach your conditions. Without knowing all of the facts here, generally the dog owner would be at fault if their loose dog wandered onto a public road and was hit by a car. Speed is not something you can prove. The bill may be reasonable but again your insurer may instruct an assessor to review it. I've seen claims where people have hit small animals and the bill has run to thousands.

dense

If a driver does collide with a dog uncontrolled in a public place, is there any onus on the driver to stop?

by8auj6csd3ioq

False.
If an uncontrolled dog is on the loose, the speeding should not be linked to any causation as the negligence is on the dog owner for not having their dog under control

That sounds to me like 'buckshe advice and pub talk'

i doubt that is correct. For a start one is obliged to drive at a speed where one can stop in the distance one can see to be clear. If the person was not doing that, and "speeding" would suggest they were, they may be partly responsible for the accident. There could be wrong on both sides. Just because the dog owner was negligent -if they were- does not mean the driver was not

This is not legal advice or attemt to say who is wrong

ELM327

Tenley Flabby Compass wrote: »

That sounds to me like 'buckshe advice and pub talk'

i doubt that is correct. For a start one is obliged to drive at a speed where one can stop in the distance one can see to be clear. If the person was not doing that, and "speeding" would suggest they were, they may be partly responsible for the accident. There could be wrong on both sides. Just because the dog owner was negligent -if they were- does not mean the driver was not

This is not legal advice or attemt to say who is wrong

Of course, this is not legal advise as we cannot give that here of course.
My own opinion: How would the speeding be proven?
The dog was on its own remember, if it were under control it wouldn't have been ran over.

by8auj6csd3ioq

The OP says "Looking for a bit of advise a women killed my dog by speeding the other night" so presumably the OP saw the speeding . The op would make a statement of this and garda would investigate. The court would decide.

Also my reply was to the fact you said  said that because the dog owner was negligent ergo the driver was not.This does not necessarily follow at all. Both could have been partly responsible. Negligence by the dog owner does not rule out negligence by the driver.

How do you know that the dog was run over solely because it was not under control. ? I saw a dog not under control today but did not run over it

GM228

ganmo wrote: »

Just to say the guards may get involved as op's dog wasn't under control a prosecution under the control of dogs act is a possibility

It all depends on the circumstances and how the dog got on the road, did it escape or was it with it's owner etc.

beachhead wrote: »

Dog loose on the road = owners responsibility.Guard calling to the door = not unusual,they do it all the time and not always as a "friend" of the complainant.However they can not enforce a bill for any damage caused.This is a civil matter = no personal injuries were caused.Better to settle up,assuming a scam is not in progress.A summons for loose dog with/without dog licence is a possibiity

A dog loose on the road is not always the owners responsibility, very much depends on the circumstances.

dense wrote: »

If a driver does collide with a dog uncontrolled in a public place, is there any onus on the driver to stop?

Have a read through this thread which is similar to what the OP and others have asked here. See in particular this post, this post and this post from another thread.

Glass fused light

dense wrote: »

If a driver does collide with a dog uncontrolled in a public place, is there any onus on the driver to stop?

There could be 2 elements at play

Section 106 of the traffic acts
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/106/enacted/en/html

The dog is property and the driver was involved in a road traffic accident so,ther is an obligation to stop (section 106.1a) and make an assessment of what happened.
The driver has an obligation to take reasonable steps either if in the scene locate and to inform the owner or any witness to the accident of the 'property' damage and call the Gardai who will most likely ask that you report in a station rather than getting them to attend.

(?) Section 12 Animal Health and Welfare Act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/15/section/12/enacted/en/html

There could/would also be an obligation under the Prevention of Cruelty act to confirm death and not to leave the dog to suffer and if the driver could not locate an owner have it PTS etc to prevent further suffering.

dense

Glass fused light wrote: »

There could be 2 elements at play

Section 106 of the traffic acts
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/106/enacted/en/html

The dog is property and the driver was involved in a road traffic accident so,ther is an obligation to stop (section 106.1a) and make an assessment of what happened.
The driver has an obligation to take reasonable steps either if in the scene locate and to inform the owner or any witness to the accident of the 'property' damage and call the Gardai who will most likely ask that you report in a station rather than getting them to attend.

(?) Section 12 Animal Health and Welfare Act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/15/section/12/enacted/en/html

There could/would also be an obligation under the Prevention of Cruelty act to confirm death and not to leave the dog to suffer and if the driver could not locate an owner have it PTS etc to prevent further suffering.

Thanks, that's very informative.

Gazzmonkey

TomOnBoard wrote: »

2. Hitting a dog (even a small one) at speed is basically like hitting a brick.

Ok, if the dog was that small and light then there should be no damage to the vehicle, but if there is damage does that mean the vehicle was likely to have been speeding?

I hit a full grown Labrador at about 30mph years ago in a 99 Civic Jordan VTi… the dog got up and continued chasing another dog and I had zero damage to my car, so I find it unlikely that hitting a small dog would do any damage within a certain speed range.

wexie

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

Ok, if the dog was that small and light then there should be no damage to the vehicle, but if there is damage does that mean the vehicle was likely to have been speeding?

I hit a full grown Labrador at about 30mph years ago in a 99 Civic Jordan VTi… the dog got up and continued chasing another dog and I had zero damage to my car, so I find it unlikely that hitting a small dog would do any damage within a certain speed range.

Don't forget though that on many rural roads the speed limit is 80...

Hitting even a little dog at speeds up to 80 is likely to cause some damage

(whether or not the speed limits are sensible for a lot of roads is something else entirely of course)

spookwoman

wexie wrote: »

Don't forget though that on many rural roads the speed limit is 80...

Hitting even a little dog at speeds up to 80 is likely to cause some damage

(whether or not the speed limits are sensible for a lot of roads is something else entirely of course)

Agreed hit a dog while back @ 85km (was a 100km road) and cost over a grand. New bumper, headlamp and fog lamp. The clips were broken on both. Bumper clips and grill damaged then they have to spray the bumper.

UrbanFret

So if it was a child who was on the road would she have run over it too? You are supposed to be obeying the speed limit and driving with due care and consideration.

ganmo

Children aren't dogs. dogs can move much faster than children

4ensic15

ganmo wrote: »

Children aren't dogs. dogs can move much faster than children

That is no excuse for running them down.