Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Speeding Car hits dog, who Liable

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    At best, you can have the driver cautioned based on any witness statements you might have. In absence of any actual evidence, you cannot prove that he was driving dangerously. The death of your dog is unfortunately not given any weight in this because dogs can move swiftly and most judges would errantly rule that the accident was "unavoidable".

    In any case, anything done against the driver would be small revenge and you will continue to be liable for damages to his vehicle. Unless it can be shown that he drove towards your dog and maliciously ran him down, you will still be found to be liable.

    My sympathies on the loss of your dog.


  • Options
    #33
    00112984
    Registered Users Posts: 1,600 ✭✭✭00112984


    Did you have pet insurance on the dog? Most policies cover damage to property in the case of an accident.

    Sadly, you are 100% responsible as the dog was on public property and not under control. The onus is on you to prove the driver was speeding and no have no way of doing that. You and the neighbours saying he looked like he was going too fast is one thing but it's not actual proof.

    Sorry to hear about your dog.


  • Options
    #34
    shy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭shy


    thanks for all the feedback. we had pet insurance put cancelled afew months ago due hitting hard times and now this. it doesn't rain but it pours.


  • Options
    #35
    lisar201
    Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭lisar201


    Unfortunitly from an insurance view the owner of the dog is liable and the driver could claim of your house insurance,In terms of him speeding it is going to be very difficult to prove he was. there would need to be tyres marks and you would need to get the gardai out to investigate so that he can be prosecuted,But i'm going to be honest the gardai don't want to know unless somebody is seriously injured.I know all this because i'm in the insurance industry myselfI am soooo sorry to hear about your dog i would be devestated too


  • Options
    #36
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Surely the driver is insured?

    Someone we know hit a dog that was always running at cars and rather than bump up her insurance she paid for the damage to her car.

    So very sorry re the dog; but most of us know how hard it is at any speed to avoid a dog that chases cars.

    There are houses here I dread driving past because their dogs tend to be loose. If I ddn't know the neighbourhood ?

    The dog should have been confined. Period.

    Hard to accept but fact.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    subway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭subway


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Surely the driver is insured?

    Someone we know hit a dog that was always running at cars and rather than bump up her insurance she paid for the damage to her car.
    i'm sure they are, but the point is that the dog owner is liable so the car owner does not have to claim on their own insurance or pay out of their own pocket if they dont want to


  • Options
    #38
    jap gt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭jap gt


    to be honest you should make some effort to pay, having knocked down a dog before, i was driving slow behind another car when a lab ran out hit my car broke light, bumper and radiator, cost over a thousand to fix, i went to the house and told them what happend, luckily they where ok about it and agreed to pay.

    a lot of people have money worries these days, whats to say the driver isnt in the same boat as you. maybe meet the driver and if they were dog lovers they might come to some agreement.

    sorry about the dog


  • Options
    #39
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users Posts: 15,382 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    TillyGirl wrote: »
    Yes its an animal but it was still going too fast to be able to stop to avoid killing the animal.


    Would you prefer if the driver swerved to avoid the dog and instead hit a person on the footpath or an oncoming car?

    You don't have to be going fast to hit an animal, I've hit a couple of rabbits and a fox and a deer over the years. I hit the deer before Christmas while travelling at 100 kph on the N4. It came out of nowhere. I couldn't stop. My choice was hit the deer or drive head on into an oncoming jeep - also travelling fast. I hit the deer. When they just run out in front of you, it doesn't matter what speed you are going, there's no time to stop. If it was a dog I would do the very same and I have two dogs of my own.

    I'm sorry for the OP, but the dog shouldn't have been loose. If the dog is an escape artist and can get out of the garden, then it needs it's own run or to be kept indoors.


  • Options
    #40
    TooManyDogs
    Registered Users Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭TooManyDogs


    It sounds like there are 2 seperate situations happening at the same time here.

    It's against the law for the dog to be out on the road, the dog owner is liable for any damage the dog does to a car, regardless of how it does the damage i.e. if the car is damaged by hitting the dog the dog owner still has to pay. That simply is the law, as my solicitor sister is always saying 'the law is black and white, it's not moral' and I think that's the biggest mistake people make. It's rotten the dog died, I'd be devestated, and it's really unfair that the car was speeding but that doesnt change the law unfortunately.

    The car driver shouldnt have been speeding, regardless of the dog, again that's simply black and white. If there's anyway of proving the car was speeding then I'd go after the car driver, but you couldnt mention the dog because you're liable for the damage anyway.


  • Options
    #41
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users Posts: 15,382 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    TooManyDogs wrote: »



    The car driver shouldnt have been speeding, regardless of the dog, again that's simply black and white. If there's anyway of proving the car was speeding then I'd go after the car driver, but you couldnt mention the dog because you're liable for the damage anyway.

    It would be hard for the OP to report the driver for speeding without saying why he was reporting him. If the driver was summonsed on the strength of that report, the first thing they are going to say is the dog ran out in front of him.

    Also how can the OP prove the driver was speeding from a visual assessment? Was he sitting at the side of the road with a speed camera?

    There have been numerous cases of penalty points thrown out of court with more proof than a visual assessment. Cars looks like they're driving faster on smaller roads anyway. He might not have been speeding.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    gramlab
    Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭gramlab


    I have 2 dogs myself and live in the country. They never leave the house or their run unless being walked.

    Might be hard to hear but if you loved the dog like one of the family then you should have ensured it was kept safely inside your own property.

    If cars are speeding on the road, go to the cops/council and see what can be done.

    Dogs on the road are bloody dangerous. I've clipped many a ditch trying to avoid them. I'd much prefer I made it home to my kids than be in hospital praising myself for avoiding a dog!


  • Options
    #43
    ppink
    Registered Users Posts: 1,458 ✭✭✭ppink


    rainbowtrout wrote: »
    It would be hard for the OP to report the driver for speeding without saying why he was reporting him. If the driver was summonsed on the strength of that report, the first thing they are going to say is the dog ran out in front of him.

    Also how can the OP prove the driver was speeding from a visual assessment? Was he sitting at the side of the road with a speed camera?

    There have been numerous cases of penalty points thrown out of court with more proof than a visual assessment. Cars looks like they're driving faster on smaller roads anyway. He might not have been speeding.

    this is so true. we are on a country road and the limit is 80kmph but even doing 60kmph cars look like they are in a rally! the roads are so narrow it makes them look like they are going at 100mph.


  • Options
    #44
    adser53
    Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭adser53


    TillyGirl wrote: »
    So a child is out on the road, the car hits them, kills them and the parents have to pay to fix the car?

    Don't be silly, it's not against the law to have your kids off leash, roaming and uncontrolled in the same way it is for dogs.

    Sorry to hear about your dog OP but I'm afraid your liable cos your dog was roaming


  • Options
    #45
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,719 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    TillyGirl wrote: »
    So a child is out on the road, the car hits them, kills them and the parents have to pay to fix the car?
    Yes, if there was no way to avoid hitting them (assuming a suitable speed). However, nobody is going to claim damages off a grieving family whose child just died. So here's a better analogy: Child isn't properly controlled, runs out onto road, car swerves out of way to avoid them and a crash ensues. Should the parents pay damages then?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #46
    cagney88
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46 ✭cagney88


    Control of dogs act ireland

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/act/pub/0032/index.html

    Im afraid there isn't much you can do about the speeding.


  • Options
    #47
    tommyhaas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,100 ✭✭✭tommyhaas


    OP, sorry to here what happened your dog, but you have no proof the car was speeding, nobody can tell looking at a car whether it is doing 40/50/60 kmph, its only hearsay. IMO your lucky nobody was hurt by the driver swerving into a ditch/other traffic/pedestrian trying to avoid your dog. Personally I feel for the driver, he/she's obviously feeling bad over what happened, probley a little shook too, and knows their likley to face hassel getting the money for the cost of their car repairs


  • Options
    #48
    00112984
    Registered Users Posts: 1,600 ✭✭✭00112984


    rainbowtrout wrote: »
    Would you prefer if the driver swerved to avoid the dog and instead hit a person on the footpath or an oncoming car?

    Would the dog owner still be liable for damage to the car in this instance? I believe they would as the damage was still caused by a dog who wasn't under control of the owner but Mr. 00112984 thinks the onus would be on the driver to prove the dog was there in the first place.

    Does anyone know?


  • Options
    #49
    crotalus667
    Registered Users Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭crotalus667


    shy wrote: »
    he was speeding, neighbours will vouch for that
    That does not mean squat unless they can prove what speed he was doing
    shy wrote: »
    is there any point getting the guards. it was an 08 audi so we fecked it will cost a couple of hundred if not grand to get fixed and we literally have no money.
    The gaurds are not goinig to go all csi to check if he was speeding and keep in mind the could (but more than likly will not) fine you
    Graces7 wrote: »
    Surely the driver is insured?
    do you think the insurence company are just going to say ok here is the cash ?? nope they are going to see if some one can be made pay which means the op could end up paying costs as well



    OP I am sorry for your loss but you where 100% in the wrong human life is valued above the life of a dog , if they want you to repair the car pay it and be happy you are not paying of the drivers coffin (they could still sue you for distress ect)


  • Options
    #50
    Miracle Salmon Warship
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ Miracle Salmon Warship


    sorry about your dog ! unless the driver is a tool he should leave it


  • Options
    #51
    jap gt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭jap gt


    [quote=[Deleted User];66701932]sorry about your dog ! unless the driver is a tool he should leave it[/QUOTE]

    why should he though, he didnt mean to hit the dog and deserves his/her car fixed
    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    00112984 wrote: »
    ... Mr. 00112984 thinks the onus would be on the driver to prove the dog was there in the first place.

    Does anyone know?
    OP admits to being the owner of the dog killed in the accident, the same dog that caused the damage to the car. Case closed your honour.


  • Options
    #53
    easyeason3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,104 ✭✭✭easyeason3


    jap gt wrote: »
    why should he though, he didnt mean to hit the dog and deserves his/her car fixed


    I agree with you totally.
    The driver probably got an awful fright. The first thing that would enter your head is that you hit a child. I'd imagine he was very angry at (a) getting a shock & (b) the damage to the car.

    I look on my pooch as my baby & if anyone hit him I'd be livid & trying to find a way to blame the driver. But unless the driver mounts a kerb while I'm out walking my dog on a lead then the fault lies with me.

    It's a horrible situation to be in, I really pity the OP & hope it's a situation I never find myself in.


  • Options
    #54
    00112984
    Registered Users Posts: 1,600 ✭✭✭00112984


    mathepac wrote: »
    OP admits to being the owner of the dog killed in the accident, the same dog that caused the damage to the car. Case closed your honour.

    I'm not talking about the OP's issue, I'm talking about the scenario Rainbowtrout gave and I quoted her on.


  • Options
    #55
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    TillyGirl wrote: »
    So a child is out on the road, the car hits them, kills them and the parents have to pay to fix the car?
    TillyGirl wrote: »
    Yes its an animal but it was still going too fast to be able to stop to avoid killing the animal.

    What if it was a child? Are you saying animals arent an important part of a family and because they can buy another one it doesnt matter?
    28064212 wrote: »
    Yes, if there was no way to avoid hitting them (assuming a suitable speed). However, nobody is going to claim damages off a grieving family whose child just died. So here's a better analogy: Child isn't properly controlled, runs out onto road, car swerves out of way to avoid them and a crash ensues. Should the parents pay damages then?

    There are some heartless bastards out there believe me... my cousin was crossing the road (she was 15 at the time) and a car knocked her down, she was in hospital for two weeks, with road rash all over her face and very bad bruising, thank god no broken bones. The driver took her mother and father to court looking for compensation to damages to his car.


  • Options
    #56
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users Posts: 15,382 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    00112984 wrote: »
    Would the dog owner still be liable for damage to the car in this instance? I believe they would as the damage was still caused by a dog who wasn't under control of the owner but Mr. 00112984 thinks the onus would be on the driver to prove the dog was there in the first place.

    Does anyone know?

    That's certainly a different take on it. Hard to know how it would be called. Dog causes driver to swerve, so dog owner is in the wrong. Driver shouldn't have swerved so driver is in the wrong.

    I think 00112984 is right

    oh btw I'm a she!


  • Options
    #57
    crotalus667
    Registered Users Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭crotalus667


    adrieanne__x wrote: »
    There are some heartless bastards out there believe me... my cousin was crossing the road (she was 15 at the time) and a car knocked her down, she was in hospital for two weeks, with road rash all over her face and very bad bruising, thank god no broken bones. The driver took her mother and father to court looking for compensation to damages to his car.
    how did the case go ??? these days it's almos all ways the drivers fault becaus they should of dpredicted that the person was going to hop off the path and driven to allow for it


  • Options
    #58
    shinikins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭shinikins


    I'm so sorry too hear about your dog. Its an awful loss when an animal passes away that has been part of the family for so long.

    Unfortunatly, the driver would be well within his rights to claim compensation for damages. I have a friend who was in a similar position about 2 years ago, one of her dogs was mown down on the road in front of her house. She sought legal help, and was told that she was responsible for any damage that the dog had caused, and the only thing she could do was seek another opinion on the damage done to the car.


  • Options
    #59
    ArseBurger
    Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ArseBurger


    TooManyDogs wrote: »
    as my solicitor sister is always saying 'the law is black and white, it's not moral'

    Exactly. And it's a court of law not a court of justice.


  • Options
    #60
    Zapperzy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,524 ✭✭✭Zapperzy


    If it was me who's dog (or indeed my cat) was hit by a car I would be livid and looking for the driver's head on a plate, my judgement would be blocked by emotion and I doubt anybody could talk sense into me, I would be looking for any way to blame the driver even though I would be at fault. But looking at it from an outside point of view with no emotions blocking my best judgement, I can see it from the driver's point of view and as others have said you haven't a leg to stand on and you are liable to pay damages.
    Sorry about your dog by the way, it must be heartbreaking. Might it be a warning to all others living in the countryside who allow dogs to run loose, only yesterday I had a collie dart out at me, luckily he wasn't hit and lived to dart another day but Im sure someday he'l not be so lucky.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Zapperzy wrote: »
    If it was me who's dog (or indeed my cat) was hit by a car I would be livid and looking for the driver's head on a plate, my judgement would be blocked by emotion and I doubt anybody could talk sense into me, I would be looking for any way to blame the driver even though I would be at fault. But looking at it from an outside point of view with no emotions blocking my best judgement, I can see it from the driver's point of view and as others have said you haven't a leg to stand on and you are liable to pay damages.
    Sorry about your dog by the way, it must be heartbreaking. Might it be a warning to all others living in the countryside who allow dogs to run loose, only yesterday I had a collie dart out at me, luckily he wasn't hit and lived to dart another day but Im sure someday he'l not be so lucky.

    Rural/farm collies are the worst at this. Maybe they think cars are sheep.

    Our's is always safely fenced in, but at one house were at the farmer moved a gate without telling us and I caught her dancing on the road with the school bus..

    Since then she has been even more carefully watched. It is essential for all on the road.

    I once hit a neighbour's dog like that; just came out of nowhere and under the car. Horrible


Advertisement