Would you sue some one over....

Topic: Would you sue some one over.... (Read 5128 times) previous topic - next topic

Would you sue some one over....

November 11, 2006, 11:35:42 AM

Scenario.

Your driving down a hwy and a dog runs out in front of you. You hit the dog and kill it.

Do you

A. Get pissed, kick dead dog, throw it into the medium and be on your way.

or

B. Find dogs owner and spend your personal time to gather as much incriminating information as possible so that you can take the dead dogs owner to court over the damages done to your minivan.

Personally I would (have) chose A. Am I out of touch here thinking that going after the dead dogs owner is just plain silly and a big waste of time. Or should we as a people be more than willing to clog up the court system and waste our precious free time in trying to take a dead dogs owner to court over something as stupid as this.

kyle

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #1 – November 11, 2006, 11:52:24 AM

Wow.

I would have been upset that I killed someone's dog. The thought of suing their owner for the damages caused by their dog never even crossed my mind until I read what you wrote.

I take it that this is currently happening to you or someone you know?

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #2 – November 11, 2006, 12:04:13 PM

How bad are the damages. I would honestly just have a sitdown with the owner about it and see where it goes. From there you can either settle it out ot court ot take legal action.

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #3 – November 11, 2006, 12:04:31 PM

Nope not me. A guy on another message board hit the dog and wants to take the guy to court over damages. I voiced my opinion and they jumped down my throat over it. Now they are talking about putting a lien against the dog owners house over a 500 dollar deductable.

Pretty crazy stuff if you ask me.

kyle

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #4 – November 11, 2006, 12:34:21 PM

Its just the world we live in. Maybe back in the 80's and early 90's, turning the other cheek would have been fine. But now everyone is realizing that if someone makes a small mistake, such as not having their dog properly tied down, and it causes some innocent party damages, the innocent party has a legal right to receive money for their losses, even if inadvertant. It is a sad situation, but the owner of the minivan should not have to pay anything for any of the damages, nor the increase in his insurance rates from going through his carrier and not the dog's owner's carrier, because the owner of the dog couldn't control where his dog was.

Yeah, he is out of a dog, but it is his fault and not the minivan driver's fault....unless the driver of the van was gunning for the dog, which is unlikely in this situation.

It's just the way the laws are written. They are written to protect people against losses due directly from someone else's negligence. I for one am thankful for it. Some times you just have to do it, no matter how "wrong" it might feel. If someone's car lost its parking brake on a hill and the car coasted into your Cougar/T-bird, you would go after them, even though it isn't directly the other car's owner's fault. And never trust someone in saying "oh I'll pay for it, don't go through insurance." It still surprises me how many people use that line and then end up in court getting asked, "why didn't you just go through the insurance company." They 99% of the time are forced to pay after their appearance.

So all in all, the minivan drive should find the owner, and have his insurance pay. If he refuses, then it's off to court.

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #5 – November 11, 2006, 12:48:26 PM

Legally I'm sure that the dog owner will have to pay. The owner of the minivans insurance already told him that it will not raise his rates because he hit a animal.

I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong. However if I was the minivan driver the thought of taking some one to court over this would have never crossed my mind. Being from rural Iowa I have hit a many animals on the road. Some of them i know where pets and others where just wild animals. I dont know anyone who has ever done such a thing and I was just surprised.

If you where driving thru a government protected animal refuge and hit a deer could you make the state or federal government responsible for the damages?

Maybe I am just from a different part of the country or of a different mindset. The thought of taking some one to court over a 500 dollar deductable from hitting a runaway dog has never crossed my mind.

It just seems to me that we have become way to sue happy as a country. Accidents happen and as long as it was not malicious intent I dont see why we cant just deal with it and move on in life.

anyone remeber the McDonalds hot coffee debacle.

Or how about the idiot that bought the new expensive bicycle and then proceeded to ride the bike at night and got ran over by a motorist. He sued the bike manufacture fior not installing warning stikers on the bike to warn him of the dangers of riding at night.

Duh. Are people really that stupid.

Sorry. End of rant. Time to get back to work and fix VWs.

kyle

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #6 – November 11, 2006, 01:23:38 PM

Maybe if hitting the dog resulted in serious injuries and a serious crash, but otherwise, hell no. I'd be pretty upset if I killed someone's dog and I'd probably want to find out whose it was because I've had a puppy killed before.

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #7 – November 11, 2006, 01:42:00 PM

I was driving back from work late one night and something ran out at me on a rural 55 MPH road. I could not stop so I hit it. I am unsure to this day if it was a dog or a possum. I just drove home, since I am I dog person it would have shook me up to go and find out.

Either way no damage to the cat.

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #8 – November 11, 2006, 03:49:01 PM

They must be american..

Should the driver be charged with involuntary manslaughter? hit and run? no, they should quit their bitching, wash the sand out of their cu NEXT TUESDAY and pay for the damage themselves.

Who would he sue if it were an wild animal? Environment Canada?

Where is this guy located? I'd like to slap him upside the head.

Scott

[/rant]

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #9 – November 11, 2006, 06:09:54 PM

Sure, there's something can be done, although in this case, it's too late.

Ever hear of Comprehensive Insurance???

I don't think one can legally or otherwise put a lien against someones else's house because the first person ran over the second person's dog, and caused vehicle damage.
It's also why cattle owners are required to have some sort of insurance in case stock gets out, and getshiznit...believe me, I learned this the hard way.

Personally, the guy that hit the dog, and is now trying to take action, is a dickwad.

Firstly, he should be sorry he hit the dog, regardless of who's to blame.

Second, if he has comp, then he needs to address the issue with his claims agent, not go off on his own...bad idea.

Third, not one state I've heard of has laws requiring to insure a DOG against a motor-vehicle collision...so...case dismissed!

sorry if i seem like a you-know-what...but this is a bullsheet thing, and it happens all the time.
Somebody runs my dog over, and then threatens to take my house..well, they'll probably need to see a dentist or 4 by the time I'm done with 'em! LOL:beatyoass:

BTW, what kinda minivan was this person in??? a cardboard car?? I've hit turkeys, other birds, deer, even a cow once....never had to replace more than lights, and once, a windshield, and guess what, my COMP insurance paid it ALL...(less deductible-but it did pay for all f the windshiled bill)
I mean, whoop-dee-effin-doo if he has to get a bumper cover...unless he was doing 120, or the dog was as big as a shetland pony, he shouldn't have any damage, unless the vehicle is a total clunker and held together by God's grace and 475 feet of ducttape!!!! WTF...can anybody not be responsible for their own shiznit anymore??

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #10 – November 11, 2006, 06:47:09 PM

Quote from: FordTruckFreeek;112922

WTF...can anybody not be responsible for their own shiznit anymore??

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #11 – November 11, 2006, 06:54:32 PM

Ya know, this may seem heartless of me, but if I hit somebody's dog I don't think I should be out $500 for somebody else's negligence, and a dog running loose is negligence. I'd want my deductible.

Wild animals are different - for one thing, the comprehensive portion of insurance pays for wild animals. Domestic animals comes out of your "collision" section and goes against your record. Many people don't carry collision because of the cost. They do so with the knowledge that if they are in an at-fault accident they're screwed. Hitting a dog would be considered an "at fault" accident. Also, wild animals are wild, They do not have people responsible for their upkeep and safety. A family dog has people responsible for it, and as such the people responsible should be, well, responsible.

Dog owners are not required to have insurance on their dogs, but they ARE required to control them, and they ARE responsible for the actions of the dog. In this case the actions of the dog caused its own death, which is certainly sad, but the driver of the car shouldn't be out $500. Judge Judy would set that dog owner straight.

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #12 – November 11, 2006, 06:57:08 PM

And some people wonder why I don't want to raise a family in this sick society..

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #13 – November 11, 2006, 07:43:42 PM

Quote

And some people wonder why I don't want to raise a family in this sick society..

ditto

Would you sue some one over....

Reply #14 – November 12, 2006, 12:56:07 AM

Yeah it sure is a sick society that people don't have to control their property and it can wreak havoc on other people's property and cause hundreds or thousands of dollars in damages. Thunder Chicken has it right. The owner of the dog is fully responcible for the dog. If it gets loose and causes a car accident, it's the owner's fault. End of story.

The society we live in is messed up...with corrupt political leaders, out of control corporations, and such, but not because people have to sue for money they are LEGALLY entitled to. You wrong me by damaging my car because you back into it, you run a red light, or your dog jumped a fence and ran out into the road, I am entitled to be in the same position I was in before your negligence.

A recent case on the People's Court pops into my head. A dog jumped the fence and was attacked by another dog. The owner of the fence jumper sued the other dog's owner and LOST because the fence couldn't contain the dog. The judge's own words were that his negligence for not having a fence that could contain his dog and not having the dog on a leash caused his dog the injuries it suffered and the other dog's owner WAS NOT responcible for the vet bills. It would be the exact same verdict in this case.

It's the way the laws are written...to protect the innocent party. If you can't live with that in this "sick" society, you are free to leave and live in a place where you have to eat your bills from damages caused by your neighbor. The case you should be worried about are the cases involving less than $100 dollars and the cases awarding hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to stupid people, not legitamate cases like this. Negligence is on the rise, not stupid reasons to sue people. And for those "stupid" lawsuits you people are refering to, the judge decides what is stupid and renders his/her verdict accordingly.