Dog knocked down in Castaheany, driver didnt stop

Dorothy Roxy · 15-02-2013 12:56PM #1

My BF was out walking our two dogs last night when he came across a couple of women and their kids standing looking at something on the road, he realised it was dog lying on the road having just been knocked down. He ran out in front a car just as it was about to run over the poor dog, the woman (i'm being polite calling her this) just drove around him and the poor little dog she made no attempt to stop!

So he picked this poor little dog up off the road and lay her on the grass she was still alive but only just. He was ringing the emergency vets just as the owner came out and picked her up off the grass and carried her home.

I understand dogs run out onto the road and sometimes drivers have no chance of avoiding hitting them but how anyone can knock a dog down and continue driving is beyond me, we were both very upset last night after witnessing this.

Was anyone near the Rosedale Estate roundabout at about 7-7:15 yesterday (Thur 14th Feb) and maybe saw that car that did this? Surly this would count as fleeing the sceane of an accident?

Gaspode · 15-02-2013 02:42PM

I think the guilty party here is the dog owner for letting their mutt roam free causing a danger to road users. Not sure if the person who hit the dog could be charged with leaving the scene tbh.

Edit: the lady in the car you mentioned, was she the one who hit the dog or was she just driving around it?

ongarite · 15-02-2013 03:30PM

Gaspode wrote: »

I think the guilty party here is the dog owner for letting their mutt roam free causing a danger to road users. Not sure if the person who hit the dog could be charged with leaving the scene tbh.

Edit: the lady in the car you mentioned, was she the one who hit the dog or was she just driving around it?

True, if the driver of the car had some damage to their car, the dog owner is responsible for cost of fixing this. May seem cruel to the dog owner but having your dog roaming freely can be a danger.

January · 15-02-2013 08:04PM

I think you have to report if you hit a dog but not any other animal? Can't be 100% on this though, and yes, if the dog was unrestrained then dog owner is 100% responsible for damages to car.

Fighting Irish · 15-02-2013 08:07PM

I wouldn't stop either tbh

sillysmiles · 17-02-2013 11:57AM

I can understand on a motorway where swerving or braking will cause a bigger accident, but on small road like house estates and 50km zones, it should be possible to stop BEFORE hitting the dog.

Drop the Ball · 17-02-2013 12:30PM

sillysmiles wrote: »

I can understand on a motorway where swerving or braking will cause a bigger accident, but on small road like house estates and 50km zones, it should be possible to stop BEFORE hitting the dog.

I think there is some bias in that last comment. I am more than familiar with that road and junction. It happens to be a very busy junction, plenty of traffic and not to mention a very busy bus route too. I am a dog person, but the only person who should feel guilty in this incident is the dog owner (lack of responsible on their behalf) and not the driver. I am not a staticacian, but the likelihood of a pet dog getting hit by a car is probably higher in a residential area than on a motorway.

From what I understand (and I may be.wrong) the original poster did not even see the incident and has either jumped to conclusions or excepted third party information as fact, I am not sure which is the case, but hopefully the poor dog recovers and the drivers is not too tramitisied.

Murt10 · 17-02-2013 03:01PM

How much more more sense would you expect your average do to have over a young child.

They are both impulsive and are liable to run out in front of cars. It's what they do.

If a child had of been killed we would all bleme the driver and want them charged with reckless driving and locked up.

sillysmiles · 17-02-2013 07:26PM

I don't that junction, but I was basically thinking that in that kind of area-built up, busy junction it could just have likely been a child.

True, we don't have what actually happened.

daymobrew · 17-02-2013 11:06PM

Murt10 wrote: »

How much more more sense would you expect your average do to have over a young child.

They are both impulsive and are liable to run out in front of cars. It's what they do.

That is why they both should be minded when near roads - using leashes as necessary.

Murt10 · 19-02-2013 12:20AM

Remember this poor girl.

http://www.herald.ie/news/girl-11-killed-as-she-chased-family-pet-across-busy-road-27922541.html

Drivers have to be constantly aware that children and animals will often act in an unpredictable way and there can be very tragic consequences.

It is up to drivers to be very watchful and aware when they are driving in housing estates, and to keep their speed down and "expect the unexpected".

On a related matter, motorists often ignore the speed limit because they are totally inappropriate. N3 going down to 18 MPH at the M50 as an example. That is too slow for such a major new 3 lane road and the 18 MPH limit is routinely ignored by everyone.

Likewise coming off the M50 at Blanchardstown. you are again suppost to slow down to 18 MPH. That might be an appropriate speed limit for some big high sided, high centre of gravity truck, but since you have to have a full licence to drive on the M50 in the first place, you should be treated like an adult and a higher speed limit applied.

A speed limit is exactly what it says, a limit. it is not a target.

On a wet frosty day, 18 MPH might be an appropriate speed limit coming off the M50, but on a dry day in the middle of the summer, it is just plain stupid. Normal people regard the people who dreamed up these limits in the first place as prats, totally out of touch with the reality of motoring, so they just ignore the speed limits set by them.

Fighting Irish · 19-02-2013 01:17AM

Murt10 wrote: »

How much more more sense would you expect your average do to have over a young child.

They are both impulsive and are liable to run out in front of cars. It's what they do.

If a child had of been killed we would all bleme the driver and want them charged with reckless driving and locked up.

:rolleyes:

muckwarrior · 19-02-2013 02:57PM

Murt10 wrote: »

If a child had of been killed we would all bleme the driver and want them charged with reckless driving and locked up.

Speak for yourself. I, and presumably most rationally minded people, would want no such thing without knowing all of the facts for sure.

L1011 · 19-02-2013 09:21PM

Driver has zero legal responsibility, doesn't have to stop, cannot be held liable for anything

Dog owner, on the other hand, is liable for the damage to the car.

spooky donkey · 20-02-2013 09:21AM

How would stoping help any thing? The damage is already done....

Marcin_diy · 20-02-2013 10:57AM

Dorothy Roxy wrote: »

the owner came out and picked her up off the grass and carried her home.

As parent of young kids I can only add that owner of this dog is not too smart. How it is possible that dog is running freely while owner is at home ?

maybe dog was just on its way to bite somebody on the other side of the road?

Driver should look for a compesation from dog owner.

markas · 26-02-2013 08:03PM

MYOB wrote: »

Driver has zero legal responsibility, doesn't have to stop, cannot be held liable for anything

righteous people...

L1011 · 27-02-2013 10:35AM

markas wrote: »

righteous people...

And? OP had a wildly incorrect view of the law and was acting as if the driver had done something seriously illegal.

westies4ever · 27-02-2013 10:41AM

Most certainly, the dog owner is at fault here for letting their dog roam free, but, dogs do escape, it couldve been a one off?

However, the driver of the car could have had a bit of compassion and stopped their car to see if they could do something or at least move the injured animal off the road.

Im not blaming them at all, but the poor little dog must've been in pain and maybe getting it to the vet sooner would have made a difference. It wasnt the dogs fault after all. Some curiously cold hearted people out there.

seamus · 27-02-2013 11:11AM

Legally the driver is required to stop if they are involved in an incident which involves damage to someone else's property.

Drivers do not legally have to stop if they hit a cat, but they do if they hit a dog, as a dog is property.

Only a scumbag doesn't stop and at least check if the dog is alive anyway.

Gaspode · 27-02-2013 12:27PM

A dog is property?
I suspect you're wrong there Seamus, but I am open to persuasion if you can show me the law that says a driver must stop if they hit a dog on the road, and that a dog is property.
The only info I can find all points to the dog owner having liability if an unleashed dog causes damage to a vehicle.

seamus · 27-02-2013 12:28PM

Yep. Your dog is your property. Hence why the owner is liable if the dog causes damage.

I suspect you're wrong there Seamus, but I am open to persuasion if you can show me the law that says a driver must stop if they hit a dog on the road, and that a dog is property.

I can show you the law that says you must stop when you damage property, but there's no law that specifically says that dogs are property to the best of my knowledge.

Dogs are implicitly classed as property, if they weren't then there could be no such thing as a dog licence and the law would not be able to prosecute a person for offences relating to their dog.

If you disagree, you'd really need to show how dogs aren't property.

Cats are specifically classed in law as "wildlife", to the best of my knowledge, though that could be an old wives' tale.

Dorothy Roxy · 27-02-2013 01:37PM

OP here, have been unable to log on since my post and TBH am quite shocked at what I have read.

Anyway we called to the dog owner the next evening to see how the dog was, she had brought the dog straight to the vet but unfortunatly the dog had to be put to sleep. It turns out the dog hadn't been let roam free, as most on here have assumed, but had infact escaped when a salesman knocked at the door 15 mins before the incident, the owner had been out searching for her when she came across my BF with the dog. Granted there are a lot of irresponsible people allow their dogs to roam free but in this instance that was not the case, the family were very upset about what had happened.

My oringinal post wasn't stating the driver was at fault, I was asking if by law you are required to stop if you hit an animal so i don't have 'widly incorrect view of the law', I simply do not know and it seems most people don't.

Also as a dog owner myself I would class them as my property afterall I pay for licence for each of my dogs every year.

Gaspode · 27-02-2013 02:22PM

It's amazing how none of us actually know for 100% certain what the laws pertaining to this are, yet we'd probably all class ourselves as responsible dog owners or responsible motorists! I'm intrigued by this, so might do a bit more digging to find the answers.

westies4ever · 27-02-2013 03:37PM

Gaspode wrote: »

It's amazing how none of us actually know for 100% certain what the laws pertaining to this are, yet we'd probably all class ourselves as responsible dog owners or responsible motorists! I'm intrigued by this, so might do a bit more digging to find the answers.

I had a bit of a 'google' myself but cant find anything definite; would you mind updating if you find info?

Paulzx · 27-02-2013 03:59PM

[

QUOTE]

Dorothy Roxy wrote: »

It turns out the dog hadn't been let roam free, as most on here have assumed, but had infact escaped when a salesman knocked at the door 15 mins before the incident, the owner had been out searching for her when she came across my BF with the dog. Granted there are a lot of irresponsible people allow their dogs to roam free but in this instance that was not the case, the family were very upset about what had happened.
QUOTE]

Unfortunatley it's irrelevent what circumstances occured to allow the dog out. It was still technically "roaming" free. The owner might not usually allow the dog out but it was outside their span of control in this case even if it was only for 15 mins.

No blame can be attached to the car owner but not stopping is obviously leaning towards a moral or decency question.

I'm a dog owner myself and actually had my dog struck by a car whilst he was on a retractable lead. He darted onto the road when i got distracted and got hit.

Who's fault?.........mine entirely. The car stopped and i told them straight out it wasn't their fault. Its the owners respnsability at all times to keep their dog under control

Dorothy Roxy · 27-02-2013 05:16PM

100% agree with you Paulzx, dog owners are entirely responsible for their dogs at all times and I myself have learned the lesson of distraction and retractable leads, never to the stage of either of mine actually being hit by a car but i did have one close call before.

The circumstances of why the dog was unaccompanied might well be irrelevant but as many other posters seemed to have missed my question in the original post and focused more on how/why the dog was out I felt it needed to be clarified.

Dog knocked down in Castaheany, driver didnt stop

Comments