I've hit a dog too, it's not fun or enjoyable. But it was that or swerve into another car or an embankment, hitting the brakes slowed me but not fast enough.
Leash up your dogs, folks.
Hit a dog on hwy...
- Thread starter CaptainJack
- Start date
I've hit a dog too, it's not fun or enjoyable. But it was that or swerve into another car or an embankment, hitting the brakes slowed me but not fast enough.
Leash up your dogs, folks.I wouldn't be able to do that, I'm too inclined to look at things from the other guy's point of view. Someone just killed my dog and now wants me to pay them for doing so? Nuts to that!
I'd probably just tell the insurance company I thought it was a deer. That's normally covered as a comprehensive event, which means no rate increase regardless of fault. It would be more complicated with a police report involved, though.
Emotionally, it would be tough to ask for money from the owners, at least for me. That's part of why the insurance company should be doing the asking, not the OP.
CaptainJack, I'm sorry this happened. I feel bad for all of you -- you, the dog, and even the irresponsible owners.
CaptainJack, I'm sorry this happened. I feel bad for all of you -- you, the dog, and even the irresponsible owners.
Remember that old adage about "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all"? This is about as far to the polar opposite of something nice as you can get.
Infraction issued for trolling. Comments to PM
While I understand the desire to tell someone off when you think they are making an *** out of themselves, this really doesn't help matters. See that little notify icon under his location in the left hand column? When you see something like this, please use that link to notify on the post and let 4th Hanson Bro, Locutus of Bored, or myself handle it.
Handling things this way just gives the troll what they want....attention and the possibility of drawing out an infraction for you.
CaptainJack, as others have said, the best thing for you to do at this point is to go through your insurance company. Give them a copy of the police report and let them handle getting the money out of these people. They've already shown that they are irresponsible by failing to control their dog. What makes you think that they are suddenly going to do a 180 and do the responsible thing in paying for your car's damages? This isn't your fault. The damage was caused by the dog, and last I heard, the dog owner is responsible for paying for the damages caused by the dog. Also, local leash laws should also point the finger of liability at them.
Hm, let's say instead of a dog it's a child that ran away from home. How would the situation be then in your opinion?
Now you could say animals are not children. But for some people they are. And there is such a thing as neglecting parental/supervisory duties, which is comparable to neglecting leash laws.
In both cases, what it comes down eventually - in my opinion - is the cruel statement "Dude, your dog/kid ruined my car."
Legally domestic animals are not the same as children; the comparison is not valid. If they are morally equivalent to you personally and you would prefer to take the loss on the vehicle, that's fine. But the OP is not "cruel" for wanting to be made whole for an accident that was not his fault and could have been prevented by reasonable measures on the part of the pet owner.
Of course people are attached to their pets, but the emotional attachment isn't legally recognized and doesn't make a pet equal to a child legally. It's a tough situation. No one is happy about the dog's death, but what can be done? The car is damaged, and leaving it damaged won't bring the dog back. Not paying for the damage won't bring the dog back, either.
Yeah, pets and children are two completely different things. First of all you're not required by law to keep your children bound up in your yard. Also when a child is crossing the street, even if not at a crosswalk, he's technically a pedestrian and it's always illegal to not yield to pedestrians. A dog is something very different, as said a dog is technically property and doesn't have any "right" to cross the street anywhere it wants. They're legally supposed to stay in the owner's yard or with owner on a leash. (Dog parks not withstanding.)
The owner failed to keep their dog under the confines of the law and are responsible for the injuries sustained to the animal and the damages to the car. I agree with what other posters said, the insurance company should handle this it's what you pay them to do. File the claim and you should be all set barring extreme circumstances and even then I think the insurance company will take the action necessary to get payment out of those liable for the accident.
Look, no one feels good about the death of the animal but at the end of the day there was still damage done to you and it happened because the pet owners were not responsible and acting inside the law by keeping the dog restrained. You shouldn't have to pay for it either out of your pocket or with higher insurance premiums by filing a claim against yourself.
The owner failed to keep their dog under the confines of the law and are responsible for the injuries sustained to the animal and the damages to the car. I agree with what other posters said, the insurance company should handle this it's what you pay them to do. File the claim and you should be all set barring extreme circumstances and even then I think the insurance company will take the action necessary to get payment out of those liable for the accident.
Look, no one feels good about the death of the animal but at the end of the day there was still damage done to you and it happened because the pet owners were not responsible and acting inside the law by keeping the dog restrained. You shouldn't have to pay for it either out of your pocket or with higher insurance premiums by filing a claim against yourself.
Legal or not, I still think it's kinda cruel, and I personally couldn't do it. Legal and right are not always on the same side. Just what IF dogs were not considered a "property". Some groups would love that. And it's not unthinkable. And it would only mean a change on the legal issue, not the moral one.
Is there some sort of a time limit for that responsibility? Like if the dog ran away and couldn't be found for a month and then gets "found" (killed) by the car? Or does there have to be a clear connection between the events?
Is there some sort of a time limit for that responsibility? Like if the dog ran away and couldn't be found for a month and then gets "found" (killed) by the car? Or does there have to be a clear connection between the events?
Last edited:
You are right. I apologize
If dogs were not property, what would they be? Independent beings responsible for their own actions? Legally and financially responsible for their own care and well-being? No, they'd just end up strays that still occasionally get hit by a vehicle.
Of course, there is a fringe group that thinks pet ownership is our generation's slavery, that pet ownership is cruel and unusual punishment. Never mind that my pets have leisurely days with plenty of food, sleep, fun, and exercise, while I'm the one that legally has to deal with their excrement on the sidewalk. Who's the slave in this arrangement?
CaptainJack
Lieutenant Commander
I have Progressive Insurance and they said that I have to pay the deductible on the damages and that it would go as a claim on my insurance and then after the work is done, then they would send the lady the bill and hopefully she would decide to pay it.
That doesnt sound right. Its almost like Progressive (my auto insurance) doesnt want me to do anything. Just go away and keep the damages.
And why should I have to file it as ANY type of claim on MY insurance. It should go on the ladies homeowners insurance right?
That doesnt sound right. Its almost like Progressive (my auto insurance) doesnt want me to do anything. Just go away and keep the damages.
And why should I have to file it as ANY type of claim on MY insurance. It should go on the ladies homeowners insurance right?
That doesn't sound right to me, either. I got in an accident a few years back and the gal that hit me admitted fault and I did have some neck issues. She was okay with paying, but her insurance company (Geico) didn't seem to want to admit anything. Mine (Metropolitan) went after them and made sure they paid. I think you need to force the issue a bit.
God people are pigs sometimes.
Like everyone else has said, if you're insured, go to your insurance company. They'll fix up those deadbeat homeowners.
If you don't have insurance, it's a little tougher, but you can launch legal action against them.
One way or another - I wouldn't let the cretins get away with it. Destroy their property and spread salt all over their lands so nothing will ever grow back there again.*
* not being sarcastic
Yep. Standard practice. If they succeed in recovering from the third party you get your excess back.
If you think you'll succeed in getting the third party's insurance details and getting them to pay up, go for it. It's a lot harder to do that especially if they are denying liability ....
CaptainJack
Lieutenant Commander
I cannot wait for something like this to happen where I can cause thousands of dollars worth of damage thru my own negligence and then when this person wants my insurance info Im just not gonna give it to them. Is that how it works now?
One way it could work is you sue them, then they go to their liability insurer.
Doing it through your insurer will remove a lot of risk and hassle from the process. Rest assured, if there's a reasonable prospect of recovery from the third party, your insurer will pursue it.
Doing it through your insurer will remove a lot of risk and hassle from the process. Rest assured, if there's a reasonable prospect of recovery from the third party, your insurer will pursue it.
I think the issue is that it didn't happen on the homeowner's property, so technically it's not a homeowner's insurance claim. Nor did it involve their vehicle, so it's not an auto insurance claim, either. That means your only recourse might be suing them directly. They should be legally liable because they didn't secure their dog, but obviously you'd have to spend a little money on this. Depending on the amount of the damages, you could take it to small claims court, where it wouldn't cost you too much to get this taken care of.
