Am I responsible for vet's fee's?

mickysquint

Hi All

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before but here goes.

Yesterday while at work I knocked down a small dog, it was going absolutely mad running in and out of the road, and although I was doing no more than about 15-20 kph there was nothing I could do as it decided to make a last quick dash in to the road as I was going past.

I assume that the dog must have gone underneath the wheel's because I wasn't going quick enough to give the dog the injuries it got just by getting hit by the bumper.

While I was tending to the dog a lady told me that it was a well known dog that would regularly be seen running around the streets. I took the dog to a local vet then decided to knock on a few doors to see if I could find the owner of the dog.

I don't mean to sound soft but I'm a real dog lover and this really shook me up, I really cant begin to explain how devastated I felt at causing the poor dog so much pain.

I went back to the vets a couple of hours later to see how the dog was to be told that the owner had turned up at the vets and the first thing they wanted to know was would I be paying for the vets fee's. So on top of feeling absolutely awful about the dog I now have the stress about am I going to get chased for vets fee's which I would say will be quite hefty going by the poor dogs injuries. Its annoyed me that some one allows there dog to roam the streets near busy roads, its just putting the dog in danger, I'm no dog expert but I know where my dog is 24/7!

Any help on this would be really appreciated.

ZETOR_IS_BETTER

If its a public road the dog owner is responsible for their dog. If they are a good owner they would not let their dog access to the road.
I wouldnt pay the vets fees.

crazygeryy

mickysquint wrote: »

Hi All

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before but here goes.

Yesterday while at work I knocked down a small dog, it was going absolutely mad running in and out of the road, and although I was doing no more than about 15-20 kph there was nothing I could do as it decided to make a last quick dash in to the road as I was going past.

I assume that the dog must have gone underneath the wheel's because I wasn't going quick enough to give the dog the injuries it got just by getting hit by the bumper.

While I was tending to the dog a lady told me that it was a well known dog that would regularly be seen running around the streets. I took the dog to a local vet then decided to knock on a few doors to see if I could find the owner of the dog.

I don't mean to sound soft but I'm a real dog lover and this really shook me up, I really cant begin to explain how devastated I felt at causing the poor dog so much pain.

I went back to the vets a couple of hours later to see how the dog was to be told that the owner had turned up at the vets and the first thing they wanted to know was would I be paying for the vets fee's. So on top of feeling absolutely awful about the dog I now have the stress about am I going to get chased for vets fee's which I would say will be quite hefty going by the poor dogs injuries. Its annoyed me that some one allows there dog to roam the streets near busy roads, its just putting the dog in danger, I'm no dog expert but I know where my dog is 24/7!

Any help on this would be really appreciated.

i dont have the answer to your question but id just like to say well done for stopping.it was a very decent and right thing to do.
it obviously wasnt your fault if the dog is let run wild like it is and i hope it all works out ok for you.

PhotogTom

From what you say, I certainly wouldn't think you are responsible for the fees. Depends on what you said when you dropped the dog off as well. I believe that the dog owner is 100% responsible for their dog 100% of the time. Drives me mad when I see dogs allowed to wander. Doesn't matter if city or country its not fair to anyone - dog or neighbors. I'd say stand your ground as lots of people would have just driven on. And, try not to blame yourself for hitting the dog in the first place.

andreac

Absolutely no!!

No, you are not responsible. The dog was out wandering and not under control by its owner, so it's the owners fault not yours.
Can't believe they would even expect you to pay for their irresponsibility!!

If the dog had caused damage to your car you would be the one claiming, not her!!

scoooby

Imagine you are the vet. A guy comes in and asks you to treat a dog. You expect to be paid by this person for your work. It's only right and fair. This person has made a verbal agreement/contract with you.

Morally, the owner should take responsibility. He/she may have the notion that you are responsible because your car injured the dog. The owner should of course have kept his dog under control, and it is not your fault. The issue of the duty of controlling the dog and the vets bills are separate though, in my opinion.

I think you should have to pay the vets bills initially (as you requested the treatment for the dog). I certainly think the owner owes you the money for this, and for any damage to the car (look VERY carefully!)...and emotional distress...and how's your back feeling after having to jam on?! The owner could be reminded of the potential cost if he/she doesn't cough up willingly.

andreac

scoooby wrote: »

Imagine you are the vet. A guy comes in and asks you to treat a dog. You expect to be paid by this person for your work. It's only right and fair. This person has made a verbal agreement/contract with you.

Morally, the owner should take responsibility. He/she may have the notion that you are responsible because your car injured the dog. The owner should of course have kept his dog under control, and it is not your fault. The issue of the duty of controlling the dog and the vets bills are separate though, in my opinion.

I think you should have to pay the vets bills initially (as you requested the treatment for the dog). I certainly think the owner owes you the money for this, and for any damage to the car (look VERY carefully!)...and emotional distress...and how's your back feeling after having to jam on?! The owner could be reminded of the potential cost if he/she doesn't cough up willingly.

That doesn't even make sense. The owner turned up so no need for the op to pay for treatment in any shape or form. It might be diff if the owner couldn't have been located.
Op, you are not responsible for the costs here and tell the owner in no uncertain terms are you paying for their mistake by leaving their dog out to roam the streets.

kylith

Not only are you not responsible for the vet's fees, if there has been any damage to your car the dog's owner is liable to pay that. By law dogs are not allowed to wander and anything a roaming dog does it's owners are responsible for.

I hope the pup will recover, and the owner will have learned a valuable lesson.

Tranceypoo

I agree with andrea & kylith plus I would also report the owner to the dog warden and tell the dog warden the full story.

To be honest I'm not really surprised the owner expects you to pay, the sort of numpty muppet that lets their dog roam the streets and run around on the road is obviously too ignorant and stupid to realise that actually, it's their fault not yours, plus if there's any damage to your car they will have to pay, I do hope you have the owners name and address to give to the warden and your insurance company. They should actually be thanking you for not just driving on and leaving the dog in pain and perhaps to die on the side of the road.

Honestly, people never cease to astound me.

Cedrus

I would say that the dog owner is liable for any damage caused by their actions or inaction regarding their dog. They are very lucky that you didn't have to swerve and hit another car or worse a pedestrian. Most dog owners don't have insurance but if they're going to let their dogs roam they really should be obliged to.

Your relationship with the vet is different, (out of the goodness in you) you took the dog to the vet, you contracted them, and they have every right to expect payment. I'm sure that many vets are used to random people bringing in injured strays and a lot of them will be happy to treat them pro bono but it is still your contract to discharge either via your insurance or you getting the dog owner to cough up, using the courts or the gardai as necessary.

The second paragraph kills me to write because you did the decent thing and took the dog for treatment instead of leaving it in the gutter, but I believe that is how it is unfortunately.

mickysquint

Cheers all for the honest replies.

I understand what a few of you have said about me requesting their service's. In fairness to the vet and I hope I'm not being naive but he genuinely seemed concerned about the dog and not once did he talk about fee's or money even on the second time I called in to see how the dog was.

And as for damage to my car, I haven't even checked and to be honest I wont be getting stressed out about any if there is, as long as the dog recovers I'll be happy.

But thanks again everyone for taking the time to reply.

Patrick2010

Cedrus wrote: »

I would say that the dog owner is liable for any damage caused by their actions or inaction regarding their dog. They are very lucky that you didn't have to swerve and hit another car or worse a pedestrian. Most dog owners don't have insurance but if they're going to let their dogs roam they really should be obliged to.

Your relationship with the vet is different, (out of the goodness in you) you took the dog to the vet, you contracted them, and they have every right to expect payment. I'm sure that many vets are used to random people bringing in injured strays and a lot of them will be happy to treat them pro bono but it is still your contract to discharge either via your insurance or you getting the dog owner to cough up, using the courts or the gardai as necessary.

The second paragraph kills me to write because you did the decent thing and took the dog for treatment instead of leaving it in the gutter, but I believe that is how it is unfortunately.

I'm sorry but this is daft. It was up to the vet to tell the OP that he would treat the dog but it was going to cost him. Its clearly the owners responsibility if they were stupid enough to let their dog roam the streets.

Artful_Badger

OP you brought the dog to the vet, so you were availing of his services not the owner. You might technically be able to get it back from the owner seeing as his negligence led to the whole scenario but you owe the vet for his time treating an animal you brought into him imo.

Just to add. If you were very insistent with the vet and the owner that you were not paying any bills as the owner was at fault and not you they probably would sort it out between themselves though.

andreac

Artful_Badger wrote: »

OP you brought the dog to the vet, so you were availing of his services not the owner. You might technically be able to get it back from the owner seeing as his negligence led to the whole scenario but you owe the vet for his time treating an animal you brought into him imo.

No he doesn't!! The owner turned up So its up to them to pay.

Artful_Badger

andreac wrote: »

No he doesn't!! The owner turned up So its up to them to pay.

Yes he does, he is the one who requested the vets services. If the owner refused to pay the vet can only seek the fees from the person that brought the animal in. That person may be able to get the money out of the owner but it still doesnt change the fact he owes the vet.

Catphish

mickysquint wrote: »

Hi All

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before but here goes.

Yesterday while at work I knocked down a small dog, it was going absolutely mad running in and out of the road, and although I was doing no more than about 15-20 kph there was nothing I could do as it decided to make a last quick dash in to the road as I was going past.

I assume that the dog must have gone underneath the wheel's because I wasn't going quick enough to give the dog the injuries it got just by getting hit by the bumper.

While I was tending to the dog a lady told me that it was a well known dog that would regularly be seen running around the streets. I took the dog to a local vet then decided to knock on a few doors to see if I could find the owner of the dog.

I don't mean to sound soft but I'm a real dog lover and this really shook me up, I really cant begin to explain how devastated I felt at causing the poor dog so much pain.

I went back to the vets a couple of hours later to see how the dog was to be told that the owner had turned up at the vets and the first thing they wanted to know was would I be paying for the vets fee's. So on top of feeling absolutely awful about the dog I now have the stress about am I going to get chased for vets fee's which I would say will be quite hefty going by the poor dogs injuries. Its annoyed me that some one allows there dog to roam the streets near busy roads, its just putting the dog in danger, I'm no dog expert but I know where my dog is 24/7!

Any help on this would be really appreciated.

A flat NO is your answer there. You did the decent thing of making sure the dog got the help he needed. One can only assume if you left the dog there that the owner would have brought him to the vet anyway. This boils down to the owners negligence. You could have ended up in a collision with another car trying to avoid the dog while he darted around the place.

You said you haven't checked for any damage to your car yet, do it. I realise a living creature had to be seen to first, but if there is damage to your car then the own is also responsible for that. They've a bloody cheek asking you for money as far as I'm concerned.

AllthingsCP

scoooby wrote: »

Imagine you are the vet. A guy comes in and asks you to treat a dog. You expect to be paid by this person for your work. It's only right and fair. This person has made a verbal agreement/contract with you.

Morally, the owner should take responsibility. He/she may have the notion that you are responsible because your car injured the dog. The owner should of course have kept his dog under control, and it is not your fault. The issue of the duty of controlling the dog and the vets bills are separate though, in my opinion.

I think you should have to pay the vets bills initially (as you requested the treatment for the dog). I certainly think the owner owes you the money for this, and for any damage to the car (look VERY carefully!)...and emotional distress...and how's your back feeling after having to jam on?! The owner could be reminded of the potential cost if he/she doesn't cough up willingly.

You pay vet and request payment off owner, If i was the owner i would pay, Also any good owner would just be thankfully the dog was treated and would gladly repay you. But you bought the dog to the vet regretfully you must pay

AllthingsCP

Catphish wrote: »

A flat NO is your answer there. You did the decent thing of making sure the dog got the help he needed. One can only assume if you left the dog there that the owner would have brought him to the vet anyway. This boils down to the owners negligence. You could have ended up in a collision with another car trying to avoid the dog while he darted around the place.

You said you haven't checked for any damage to your car yet, do it. I realise a living creature had to be seen to first, but if there is damage to your car then the own is also responsible for that. They've a bloody cheek asking you for money as far as I'm concerned.

Why the vet has to be receive its payment its not a free service, This OP bought the dog in and started the agreement, If the owner discover that the dog is in the vets if he/she are good owner's they will pay but if not it falls to the OP. Regarding the car if not reported straight away after the damage is done the OP hasn't a leg to stand on as i learned off the cops.

Catphish

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Why the vet has to be receive its payment its not a free service, This OP bought the dog in and started the agreement, If the owner discover that the dog is in the vets if he/she are good owner's they will pay but if not it falls to the OP. Regarding the car if not reported straight away after the damage is done the OP hasn't a leg to stand on as i learned off the cops.

The person that owns the dog wasn't looking after him. just because you can own a dog it doesn't mean you should. and there are plenty like them too.

I wouldn't exactly trust them to do the decent thing and pay the op back either. I don't see why the OP should be out of pocket because an owner can't control their dog. Sod that.

AllthingsCP

Catphish wrote: »

The person that owns the dog wasn't looking after him. just because you can own a dog it doesn't mean you should. and there are plenty like them too.

I wouldn't exactly trust them to do the decent thing and pay the op back either. I don't see why the OP should be out of pocket because an owner can't control their dog. Sod that.

That not the case tho the OP bought the dog to the vets, Basically hiring the services of that vets to ensure the safety of the dog. The vet has a business and regretfully will seek payment off the OP unless the owner pay, The OP should try contact the owner if he/she is able other then that the court letter will go to the OP whether it is right or wrong the OP started the contract with the Vets. And the Vet will seek payment even more so if it was expensive, I know the OP did the right thing and should not have to be out of pocket but unless the owner come forward, Or the OP contacts SPCA and tells them his case and they take the dog due to the the owners been unable to care for the dog maybe they will help with the bills

Catphish

AllthingsCP wrote: »

That not the case tho the OP bought the dog to the vets, Basically hiring the services of that vets to ensure the safety of the dog. The vet has a business and regretfully will seek payment off the OP unless the owner pay, The OP should try contact the owner if he/she is able other then that the court letter will go to the OP whether it is right or wrong the OP started the contract with the Vets. And the Vet will seek payment even more so if it was expensive, I know the OP did the right thing and should not have to be out of pocket but unless the owner come forward, Or the OP contacts SPCA and tells them his case and they take the dog due to the the owners been unable to care for the dog maybe they will help with the bills

Don't get me wrong, I agree the vet shouldn't be the one left out of pocket, but neither should the op. I'm going to assume the the vet traced the owner by the a chip. If that's the case then that is where the bill should be going. I don't see the point if using the op as the middle man here.

AllthingsCP

Catphish wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I agree the vet shouldn't be the one left out of pocket, but neither should the op. I'm going to assume the the vet traced the owner by the a chip. If that's the case then that is where the bill should be going. I don't see the point if using the op as the middle man here.

Is their a chip? if not i stand by what i said.

Catphish

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Is their a chip? if not i stand by what i said.

Well I did say that I assumed that's how the vet found the owner. The way I see it is, the vet is entitled to their money, but it was handled badly in their part. The question the owner asked about the op paying should have been nipped in the bud. It's not down to the vet to act as a go between, the dogs owner should be billed.

I'm sure this happens often enough, the vet should know how to handle these situations. I would tell the vet to bill the dogs negligent owner and I'd be off out the door.

Capercaille

The OP brought the dog to the vet. He has the responsibility to pay the vet and then get the money off the owner. Hopefully the owner will pay up. The vet is running a business not a charity.

From the vets perspective he might think the OP is trying to con him out of payment. The local vet here often gets people coming into him with dogs/cats saying it's not their pet, it's a neighbours pet and that they will drop money down or that it's just a stray they found. End result the vet doesn't get paid.

Dodd

Of help but...
When I was 18 a neighbours dog got hit outside our home and I carefully put it under my jacket then hopped on my motorbike to take to the vet a mile away.
It shat loads on my in that mile.
Anyway before I had the dog out of my jacket he asked who will be paying.
I said the owner....he asked if the owner said he would and would I pay if the owner didn't .
I agreed I would pay if the owner didn't and was very lucky the owner paid even though he didn't like it.
His kids love me for saving their dog.:)

Kristopherus

Catphish wrote: »

The person that owns the dog wasn't looking after him. just because you can own a dog it doesn't mean you should. and there are plenty like them too.

I wouldn't exactly trust them to do the decent thing and pay the op back either. I don't see why the OP should be out of pocket because an owner can't control their dog. Sod that.

Absolutely. And from the OP's description of the owner first asking "Who's paying?", then I would'nt dream of paying the vet and hoping/expecting a refund from that kind of owner:(.

scoooby

andreac wrote: »

That doesn't even make sense. The owner turned up so no need for the op to pay for treatment in any shape or form. It might be diff if the owner couldn't have been located.
Op, you are not responsible for the costs here and tell the owner in no uncertain terms are you paying for their mistake by leaving their dog out to roam the streets.

What I said makes total sense. It is 100% logical and is echoed by others later in this thread. That's not to say that there isn't an alternative view.

I think we are all agreed that the OP shouldn't have to pay the vet. There's no need to state that anyone's opinion is daft (Patrick2010).

The chain of events is very important. Was the dog's owner on the scene before the vet had treated the dog? It's straightforward then - if the owner wants the dog treated then he can pay for it.

If the OP had requested treatment and the vet had done so before the owner had arrived, then the OP owes the vet and the OP will need to recoup the money from the owner. Why? Because the vet did work for the OP, requested by the OP. The owner might have chosen a different course of action (i.e. a cheaper vet or chosen not to treat the dog, or had the dog put down because of inability to meet treatment costs - AN ASIDE: this is less ridiculous or even callous than it seems. I had a boxer dog who had heart trouble. He was thirteen - old for a boxer. He already had quite a lot of expensive treatment at the vets and I was told that I could have him operated on in UCD at a cost of thousands with a 20% chance of success. He was unlikely to last much longer in any case due to his age. The vet said that the other option was to have him put down. It was a genuine dilemma. I don't have thousands to spend (and possibly waste) much as I loved the dog, and such money would be better spent on my children. In the end the dog died at home a half hour before the vet I had called could see him. The point about all this is that there are sometimes options regarding veterinary treatment, and people's financial situations must be taken into account - a sad reality of life).

If I was the owner, I would have gladly paid - a matter of honour and gratitude - but that's not the point. The fact that the owner ought to pay is irrelevant. The fact that the owner ought to have kept his dog under control is even more irrelevant.

Consider this - If the vet is not paid, the vet could sue the OP (theoretically - I don't actually imagine it would happen). The owner did not request the vet's services so I can't see how he could be held responsible for the debt.

If there is any flaw in my logic or if I have missed something, please point it out, but don't say I am wrong because you would LIKE things to be different, or the world to be fairer!

By the way, the OP has already heard both sides of the argument and so my post and whatever follows is unlikely to help! For me, this has become an interesting debate about the logic of the situation, that's all.

fiounnalbe

Personally OP I think it depends what you said to the Vet when you dropped in the dog. If you brought it in and specifically asked for treatment, then I would presume you have to pay for the treatment.

Unfortunately not all owners care about their animals and if these already had it out wandering, presumably they don't; so they may not have wanted to get the dog treated for its injuries and will say they are not paying as they did not ask for veterinary intervention, you did.

Dave_The_Sheep

I would like to hear how this plays out - if the owner pays out, assuming the OP is going to pay the vets bill, since they were the one to bring the dog in. I agree that they shouldn't' have to pay (morally) but since they initiated the vet doing the work, it's their bill. Keep us updated?

Stellaluna

As harsh as it sounds, perhaps the vet should have withheld treatment until the owner was contacted if he didn't want to be left out of pocket? That way the owner has to authorise the treatment. The OP did the right thing by bringing the dog to the vet but can't be expected to pay for the treatment.

Dodd

If I paid the bill I would claim the dog and keep until I got a refund for the bill.
I think the vet would hand the dog to who ever pays the bill,no.?

But then again it was chipped so the owner can claim it back.

The worst part about this kind of thing is people will be more likely to leave a pet to die on the side of the road after reading this kind of thread.