Car owner kills dog and sues owners

Leash laws exist for a reason.

@ Gar Swaffar
Leash laws exist for a reason.

I agree, it will cost them both legal costs. The dog might have run away suddenly and the car may have hit it accidentally I think. It is hard to say who is to be blamed the main article doesn't say it.

I gotta side with the driver. If you own a dog it's your responsibility to keep it leashed and out of the road.

What has ever happened to compassion? I think the dog's owners would have been suffering enough due to the loss of their pet. Seems people are too quick to sue.

@ harmony
What has ever happened to compassion? I think the dog's owners would have been suffering enough due to the loss of their pet. Seems people are too quick to sue.

Compassion doesn't repair your car or get you back the days of lost work.

@ atroxodisse
Compassion doesn't repair your car or get you back the days of lost work.

The way I see it, they both suffered a loss, so why not move on?

@ harmony
The way I see it, they both suffered a loss, so why not move on?

Because their dog broke his car. Why does it matter that they suffered a loss? If the dog walked away then they should have to pay him but since the dog died they shouldn't? Why does the outcome of the dog's injuries matter? They were negligent, they should pay.

@ atroxodisse
Because their dog broke his car. Why does it matter that they suffered a loss? If the dog walked away then they should have to pay him but since the dog died they shouldn't? Why does the outcome of the dog's injuries matter? They were negligent, they should pay.

See. This type of thinking is exactly what I meant when I mentioned the lack of compassion.

@ harmony
See. This type of thinking is exactly what I meant when I mentioned the lack of compassion.

In other words, no reason.

You can have compassion for the loss of the dog for its owners. But if the dog had not run out in the street it would still be alive.

I agree with Gar and atroxodisse.

If the dog had been on a leash there wouldn't be a damaged car and a dead dog. It certainly isn't the car owner's fault.

How much damage could a miniature pinscher cause to an old Honda Civic?
No question the dog owner should have had Fester on a leash or behind a gate; but a good lawyer should have no problem reducing the requested damages.

The dog was certainly much smaller than a small child, for instance. I wonder if he would have sued for damages after killing a child..?

@ Jedediah Redman
How much damage could a miniature pinscher cause to an old Honda Civic?
No question the dog owner should have had Fester on a leash or behind a gate; but a good lawyer should have no problem reducing the requested damages.

The dog was certainly much smaller than a small child, for instance. I wonder if he would have sued for damages after killing a child..?

I guess that all depends on what he ran into when trying to avoid the dog. You can cause considerable damage to your vehicle when you run into people, dogs, whatever. Bumpers are designed to crumple to minimize internal damage to whatever you hit and the interior of your vehicle. Hitting a dog isn't the same as hitting a child.

@ Jedediah Redman
How much damage could a miniature pinscher cause to an old Honda Civic?
No question the dog owner should have had Fester on a leash or behind a gate; but a good lawyer should have no problem reducing the requested damages.

The dog was certainly much smaller than a small child, for instance. I wonder if he would have sued for damages after killing a child..?

That's interesting. I was thinking the same thing.

@ atroxodisse
I guess that all depends on what he ran into when trying to avoid the dog. You can cause considerable damage to your vehicle when you run into people, dogs, whatever. Bumpers are designed to crumple to minimize internal damage to whatever you hit and the interior of your vehicle. Hitting a dog isn't the same as hitting a child.

Hitting a dog isn't the same as hitting a chld but there is still loss of life. Harder to place a dollar value on loss of life than damages to a car.

@ harmony
Hitting a dog isn't the same as hitting a chld but there is still loss of life. Harder to place a dollar value on loss of life than damages to a car.

Eating a carrot has loss of life too. Loss of life has no dollar value. One can have compassion and still recognize that they're responsible and should pay for damages.

@ atroxodisse
Eating a carrot has loss of life too. Loss of life has no dollar value. One can have compassion and still recognize that they're responsible and should pay for damages.

Eating a carrot? How ridiculous...

@ atroxodisse
I guess that all depends on what he ran into when trying to avoid the dog. You can cause considerable damage to your vehicle when you run into people, dogs, whatever. Bumpers are designed to crumple to minimize internal damage to whatever you hit and the interior of your vehicle. Hitting a dog isn't the same as hitting a child.

Duh.
Thanks for that insight; but it looks to me like he didn't run into much of anything when trying to avoid the dog.
He hit the dog.
The guy is trying to scam the dog's owner into paying him for looking for somebody to fix his car...

@ Jedediah Redman
He hit the dog.
The guy is trying to scam the dog's owner into paying him for looking for somebody to fix his car...

It's amazing how much you can tell with absolutely no information. Thanks for the insight Nostradamus.

He attempted to avoid hitting the dog.

Some people with older cars take very good care of their cars and if they are in an accident they never get enough to purchase another car that was as good as theirs. That is if they get anything at all .
The dog should have not been running loose.

Nobody on this topic has addressed my question--if they thought he would have sued for damages after killing a child?
People on this forum seem bound by their original impressions nearly to the point of ownership:
Look at the way atroxodisse--a relative unloon--leaped upon ol' zet for making an assumption which did not necessarily mesh with the assumptions atrox had made...

@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
He attempted to avoid hitting the dog.

Some people with older cars take very good care of their cars and if they are in an accident they never get enough to purchase another car that was as good as theirs. That is if they get anything at all .
The dog should have not been running loose.

Sorry about ruffling your feathers, cyn..
I drive a 91 pickup and a 95 Buick; so I'm not exactly a new car purist.
But I realize their value is reckoned in replacement rather than repair; so when it comes time to repair the kind of a ding left by a little dog like a miniature pinscher on a 97 Civic, I am just being realistic...

@ Jedediah Redman
Nobody on this topic has addressed my question--if they thought he would have sued for damages after killing a child?
People on this forum seem bound by their original impressions nearly to the point of ownership:
Look at the way atroxodisse--a relative unloon--leaped upon ol' zet for making an assumption which did not necessarily mesh with the assumptions atrox had made...

Schrödinger's cat?
Who cares?
If the dog had been in a box which was run over is it still alive before the box is opened?
Why does it matter if it was a dog, a child or a medicine ball?
The issue in this case is only who caused what to happen.

Except that a kids head and/or a dog's head would be softer than a medicine ball, but so would a two hundred pound pumpkin.

@ Jedediah Redman
Sorry about ruffling your feathers, cyn..
I drive a 91 pickup and a 95 Buick; so I'm not exactly a new car purist.
But I realize their value is reckoned in replacement rather than repair; so when it comes time to repair the kind of a ding left by a little dog like a miniature pinscher on a 97 Civic, I am just being realistic...

Ah Jed, you didn't ruffle my feathers. :-)
But I have known people with older vehicles that have taken excellent care of them. If they have an accident there is no way, even if they would have them insured, the car can ever be replaced.

@ Jedediah Redman
Nobody on this topic has addressed my question--if they thought he would have sued for damages after killing a child?
People on this forum seem bound by their original impressions nearly to the point of ownership:
Look at the way atroxodisse--a relative unloon--leaped upon ol' zet for making an assumption which did not necessarily mesh with the assumptions atrox had made...

If it had been a child that ran out in front of the car then it would have been a whole different story I would think, Jed.

Here is a picture of "Fester" the 13 pound gy-normous dog who caused all the damage to this guys car:

Honestly people, how much damage could this miniature pincer do to a car? American's are overzealous in their pursuit of "damages" and their abuse of the legal system.

'Nuff said.

@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
If it had been a child that ran out in front of the car then it would have been a whole different story I would think, Jed.

Why..?

@ Jedediah Redman
Why..?

Why? Well I believe that a child's life to most people is more important than an animal's.

Also I don't think that there is a law that says that children should be on a leash when outside.
The dog owner could possibility have been breaking the law if the dog was not inside a fence or on a leash.

@ Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
Here is a picture of "Fester" the 13 pound gy-normous dog who caused all the damage to this guys car:

Honestly people, how much damage could this miniature pincer do to a car? American's are overzealous in their pursuit of "damages" and their abuse of the legal system.

I'm with you. In dog vs car -- the car always wins.

That said -- dogs need to be protected from that scenario.

And so do kids.
Drivers are licensed to use our public thoroughfares.
When they drive in such a manner as to endanger citizens or the property of citizens their licenses should be revoked...

@ atroxodisse
Eating a carrot has loss of life too. Loss of life has no dollar value. One can have compassion and still recognize that they're responsible and should pay for damages.

Oh I see, I was unaware that a carrot was self aware. You must be one of the worlds greatest geniuses. Tell me, by what means did you discover this?

You may want to go back to school and learn a few things. A carrot is not a loss of life. It is not self aware. So if I hit your mother with my car, can I sue you for damages? Even if you have to watch her die before your eyes? :-D

I now understand why we have violence in the world. The circumstances behind the incident are not known. You have no idea what happened. What if the dog got out because some punk kid wanted to vandalize the home and opened the fence where the dog was secured?
You also failed to take into account how the driver may have been driving. Were you there? Did you see him? What if he was carelessly? I suppose that doesn't matter because his car got damaged. Oh wow his car got damaged, let me get hanky and shed a tear for him. So he missed worked big deal. How many times had the driver missed work for being drunk? Should he sue the bar that sold him the alcohol?
I sincerely hope you have no children and are unable to procreate or have any influence in this world. Your kind of thinking is why we have selfishness, murder, and a society that values a green piece of paper over family and life! Kids raised by people like you are why we have innocent children killed over a pair of sneakers. Good job!

Most of Humanity is disgusting and hopefully we either evolve above these shortcomings or get a nice wipe out of our civilization.

@ atroxodisse
It's amazing how much you can tell with absolutely no information. Thanks for the insight Nostradamus.

Hey genius you might want to look into what you are doing!
Wow look at you, all knowing and all seeing. You must have your own religion.

@ WilliamC
Oh I see, I was unaware that a carrot was self aware. You must be one of the worlds greatest geniuses. Tell me, by what means did you discover this?

You may want to go back to school and learn a few things. A carrot is not a loss of life. It is not self aware. So if I hit your mother with my car, can I sue you for damages? Even if you have to watch her die before your eyes? :-D

I now understand why we have violence in the world. The circumstances behind the incident are not known. You have no idea what happened. What if the dog got out because some punk kid wanted to vandalize the home and opened the fence where the dog was secured?
You also failed to take into account how the driver may have been driving. Were you there? Did you see him? What if he was carelessly? I suppose that doesn't matter because his car got damaged. Oh wow his car got damaged, let me get hanky and shed a tear for him. So he missed worked big deal. How many times had the driver missed work for being drunk? Should he sue the bar that sold him the alcohol?
I sincerely hope you have no children and are unable to procreate or have any influence in this world. Your kind of thinking is why we have selfishness, murder, and a society that values a green piece of paper over family and life! Kids raised by people like you are why we have innocent children killed over a pair of sneakers. Good job!

Most of Humanity is disgusting and hopefully we either evolve above these shortcomings or get a nice wipe out of our civilization.

You know me so well.

A carrot is alive. You may want to look that up. Something does not have to be self aware to be alive. In fact, the criteria for life are very simple.
Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

If you hit my mother with a car and she was J-walking you can sue for damages. If you get hit by a car while J-walking it is your fault and you will get a ticket.

I sincerely hope you are not as big of an asshole as you sound. In one statement you go from saying how horrible some people are to wishing everyone was dead. Humanitarian of the year award for you.

The obvious point of the article was to cause a knee jerk reaction because someone's dog died. If he was driving drunk the article would have mentioned that. If he was driving dangerously, the article would have mentioned that as well. Apply Occam's razor. The article in fact states that he tried to avoid hitting the dog but could not. If they had rolled a ball into the street and caused the accident would it be ok if he sued for damages? The fact that their dog died is irrelevant.

@ atroxodisse
You know me so well.

A carrot is alive. You may want to look that up. Something does not have to be self aware to be alive. In fact, the criteria for life are very simple.
Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

If you hit my mother with a car and she was J-walking you can sue for damages. If you get hit by a car while J-walking it is your fault and you will get a ticket.

I sincerely hope you are not as big of an asshole as you sound. In one statement you go from saying how horrible some people are to wishing everyone was dead. Humanitarian of the year award for you.

The obvious point of the article was to cause a knee jerk reaction because someone's dog died. If he was driving drunk the article would have mentioned that. If he was driving dangerously, the article would have mentioned that as well. Apply Occam's razor. The article in fact states that he tried to avoid hitting the dog but could not. If they had rolled a ball into the street and caused the accident would it be ok if he sued for damages? The fact that their dog died is irrelevant.

Damn right I'm an asshole. :-D And damn proud of it too!

If they had rolled a ball on the street, get over it! So what because kids were playing you should plant a law suit. Everyone in America sues for everything. Its a country of whiners.

Point is the article doesn't state jack! it doesn't say how the dog got out, it doesn't say if he was speeding. On top of that if he was speeding I doubt he would openly say, yeah officer I was speeding saw the dog and tried to avoid him, but couldn't because I like to go fast. Just because he tried to avoid the animal does not mean he was not driving wrecklessly. The article state little to no detail.

@ WilliamC
Damn right I'm an asshole. :-D And damn proud of it too!

If they had rolled a ball on the street, get over it! So what because kids were playing you should plant a law suit. Everyone in America sues for everything. Its a country of whiners.

Point is the article doesn't state jack! it doesn't say how the dog got out, it doesn't say if he was speeding. On top of that if he was speeding I doubt he would openly say, yeah officer I was speeding saw the dog and tried to avoid him, but couldn't because I like to go fast. Just because he tried to avoid the animal does not mean he was not driving wrecklessly. The article state little to no detail.

Ah, I see, so it's ok to be irresponsible, you should just get over it. I guess drinking and driving is ok too, because, get over it.

@ atroxodisse
Ah, I see, so it's ok to be irresponsible, you should just get over it. I guess drinking and driving is ok too, because, get over it.

Have trouble reading do you? yeah, guess it must be difficult for you when there aren't too many pictures.

An argument between mental giants..!