My dog was knocked down

BelleOfTheBall

He can claim off your house insurance I think pets are covered for this.dont hand any money until you have facts

Lemlin

gizmo555 wrote: »

LOL, I have in fact claimed and been paid for reduction in value of my car on top of the actual cost of repairs from the other party's insurance. If I recall correctly, the usual rule of thumb is 10% of the repair costs.

You have been paid depreciation for your vehicle. The percentage amount depends on the age of the car and the damage sustained. For example, a lesser percentage is paid for cosmetic damage than structural damage to a vehicle. A higher percentage would also be paid for a 2012 vehicle as opposed to a 2008 vehicle. It is rare that depreciation would be paid on a vehicle 6 years or older.

Judging by the responses thus far, I would imagine I am the only Certified Insurance Practicioner to reply.

The best thing the OP can do is contact his house insurer. They are in a position to advise the OP correctly and ensure that the third party provides the support documentation which he needs to. The third party is entitled to go to a garage of his choice for a quote but the OP's insurer is also entitled to have this quote reviewed by a motor assessor to ensure that the damage is consistent and the amount is fair.

Also involving the insurance company does not mean that the OP's No Claims Bonus will be effected, most insurance companies will complete an investigation and then allow a Policy Holder the chance to settle privately with the third party if they wish to. They are willing to take the hit for investigation costs such as an assessor.

The OP does need to be very careful. There is nothing to stop this man developing a "soft tissue injury" and claiming personal injury. That's where the expense will really occur.

joe6pack

Hi gang,

Thanks for all the suggestions it's clear to me now we are liable for the damage and that's okay.We are relatively new to dog ownership (2.5 yrs) and the young lad is very upset but I've explained to him it's definitely not his fault as it was an accident.

I suppose I'll see what this guy has in mind tonight but after having a quick look on done deal a 2002 mondeo are all under a €1000 so I'd only really be prepared to give him €250-300 max.

Main thing is that my son ,the driver and the dog are all okay.

Thanks again for the help

Pumpkinseeds

Poor dog and child. Where there any other witnesses to the incident? I'm just wondering how the guy would have a claim for damage to his car that may or may not have been caused by hitting the dog. There is only his word that it was the accident that caused the damage.

MayoAreMagic

Tordelback
Maybe because he's a human being and should have some empathy for the animal and its owners thaty outweighs the superficial condition of his material possessions?
Yes, the law is clear that it's the owner's fault, and thankfully no-one was hurt, but being a cold-hearted dick into the bargain is unnecessary.

Was he though? Maybe after coming back with the child and his dog and could see they were both fine (the fact that the dog is fine would indicate he is a responsible driver) and the €500 was just an estimate for the OP as to what to expect - which could yet be proven entirely valid. He did show them the damage straight away without leaving the scene etc. We are only getting one version here, which is coming second hand from a child whose dog just got hit by a car, let's not forget. I don't think he has done a whole lot wrong to be honest. The only thing people seem to have an issue with is his quote of €500, but we don't know if he said 'I have seen these things add up to' in just passing conversation or what exactly was said.

ForEffsSake

Hi Joe6pack,
Do you have health insurance for your dog? Often accidental damage caused by the dog is covered under this insurance - I know it is under my dog's insurance.
No matter who was walking the dog or what it does, unfortunately you are liable for any damage they cause. All part of the joys of dog ownership!
Cats are exempt as they are deemed as 'free spirits' by insurance companies apparently.

Glad to hear you're all ok and in the grand scheme of things, nobody was hurt.

Obviously get the man to give a proper quote for the damage - hopefully it'll be less than the 500 he quoted,

Stheno

joe6pack wrote: »

I suppose I'll see what this guy has in mind tonight but after having a quick look on done deal a 2002 mondeo are all under a €1000 so I'd only really be prepared to give him €250-300 max.
p

Op that's not how it works, I've a car worth about that much and damage to the paintwork cost €500 to put right.

Either contact your home insurance and get him to provide quotes etc, or ask him for three quotes and then agree on a sum to repair the car if you don't go through insurance

Lemlin

joe6pack wrote: »

Hi gang,

Thanks for all the suggestions it's clear to me now we are liable for the damage and that's okay.We are relatively new to dog ownership (2.5 yrs) and the young lad is very upset but I've explained to him it's definitely not his fault as it was an accident.

I suppose I'll see what this guy has in mind tonight but after having a quick look on done deal a 2002 mondeo are all under a €1000 so I'd only really be prepared to give him €250-300 max.

Main thing is that my son ,the driver and the dog are all okay.

Thanks again for the help

Please keep in mind that the driver has 24 months for injuries to "develop". Just because he says he is fine now, doesn't confirm he will be in a month.

This lad has already tried to claim €500 from you unfairly so I'd be contacting my insurance.

Tordelback

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Was he though? Maybe after coming back with the child and his dog and could see they were both fine (the fact that the dog is fine would indicate he is a responsible driver) and the €500 was just an estimate for the OP as to what to expect...

I wasn't actually suggesting the specific driver in the OP's case was a dick, I was referring to this contention:

_Brian wrote: »

I fail to see why the driver should be more concerned about the dog than his car !

I do see why a driver should be more concerned about injury and distress to living creatures than a dent on his bloody car.

Steppenwolfe

Why is the dog owner autimatically seen as at fault here. If it had been a child there would have been an enquiry in to the circumstances. When i was learning to drive I was told to always allow for the unexpected like kids or dogs running in to my path. I walk my dog in a residential estate and I see drivers driving carelessly all the time. Flying around with no heed to what might be around the next cornor. Don't even start me off on mobile phones. If it was me I'd want to see a police report before he got a penny.

Stheno

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Why is the dog owner autimatically seen as at fault here. If it had been a child there would have been an enquiry in to the circumstances. When i was learning to drive I was told to always allow for the unexpected like kids or dogs running in to my path. I walk my dog in a residential estate and I see drivers driving carelessly all the time. Flying around with no heed to what might be around the next cornor. Don't even start me off on mobile phones. If it was me I'd want to see a police report before he got a penny.

Dog owners are legally obliged under the control of dogs act to ensure that their dogs are under effective control at all times

Steppenwolfe

Stheno wrote: »

Dog owners are legally obliged under the control of dogs act to ensure that their dogs are under effective control at all times

I know that and it's a good law. There are also good laws regarding drivers in control of a vehicle. If the driver in case had been drunk and speeding would it still be the dog owners responsibility to pay for the damage?

dogluver

To be honest I think the driver has a good case. A child at 13 shouldn't be walking a dog by themselves on a public footpath anyway especially if its getting dark. There should be a adult with them. This might not have happened then.

DBB

dogluver wrote: »

To be honest I think the driver has a good case. A child at 13 shouldn't be walking a dog by themselves on a public footpath anyway especially if its getting dark. There should be a adult with them. This might not have happened then.

There's no legal backing to what age the child should be when walking a dog, unless the dog is a breed or cross from the restricted breed list. And surely the child can do whatever he likes with or without a dog on a public footpath, as long as it's legal?!
I personally wouldn't be getting into too much of a flap about a 13 year old boy walking a dog in a housing estate or built-up area. Either way, it's a moot point. This same scenario has happened many an adult dog-walker in broad daylight.
Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge of liability than I could advise as to the following, but depending upon what happened, there may be a possibility that if you go the "official" route with this, that the driver may have to accept some proportion of liability. As already pointed out, depending on the circumstances he should have been able to stop, especially if it's a built-up area you live in? If the dog ran headlong into his car and there was genuinely nothing the driver could have reasonably done to avoid him, it's a different story.

Lemlin

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I know that and it's a good law. There are also good laws regarding drivers in control of a vehicle. If the driver in case had been drunk and speeding would it still be the dog owners responsibility to pay for the damage?

Yes, the proximate cause of the accident is still the dog which was out of control. The accident would not have happened if the dog was under control.

If a driver was drunk and speeding it does not effect liability in this case. It would also be up to the Gardai to seek a prosecution but it would have no impact on this type of Road Traffic Accident.

Why is the dog owner autimatically seen as at fault here. If it had been a child there would have been an enquiry in to the circumstances. When i was learning to drive I was told to always allow for the unexpected like kids or dogs running in to my path. I walk my dog in a residential estate and I see drivers driving carelessly all the time. Flying around with no heed to what might be around the next cornor. Don't even start me off on mobile phones. If it was me I'd want to see a police report before he got a penny.

The Gardai will only complete a report on a serious accident or where there is a possible prosecution. The only possible prosecution here would be for the dog owner. No Garda report would be completed on an incident like this. The Gardai will leave same to "civil remedy".

DBB wrote: »

There's no legal backing to what age the child should be when walking a dog, unless the dog is a breed or cross from the restricted breed list. And surely the child can do whatever he likes with or without a dog on a public footpath, as long as it's legal?!
I personally wouldn't be getting into too much of a flap about a 13 year old boy walking a dog in a housing estate or built-up area. Either way, it's a moot point. This same scenario has happened many an adult dog-walker in broad daylight.
Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge of liability than I could advise as to the following, but depending upon what happened, there may be a possibility that if you go the "official" route with this, that the driver may have to accept some proportion of liability. As already pointed out, depending on the circumstances he should have been able to stop, especially if it's a built-up area you live in? If the dog ran headlong into his car and there was genuinely nothing the driver could have reasonably done to avoid him, it's a different story.

The driver will not have to accept a proportion of liability. How could you find negligence against the driver? The OP has admitted that his child did not have control of the dog. The dog was the proximate cause of the accident. Ask yourself this, if the dog had not run onto the road, would the accident have occured? No, it would not.

If this was a large case, with an injured child, the driver would be responsible for some proportion of liability because, as you say, the rules of the road say he should be able to stop for an "emergency". A dog breaking free from a child and running onto the road would not be classed by the RTA as an "emergency". I would also add that a high amount of contributory negligence would also be taken from any settlement to a child who ran in front of a car.

sillysmiles

AFAIK your insurance (OP) should cover your dog for being out of control and causing an accident. And skipping through all the flap about whether the driver should be worried about your dog (IMO no) or whether your son should have been walking the dog (imo yes, why not) the bones of it is that your dog was out of control and caused an accident. That's what insurance is there for.

Hopefully your dog is ok and your son is not to shook up about it. Accidents happen that's why you have insurance to pay for the damages.

joe6pack

The driver came back to my home yesterday evening and showed me the damage which was IMO very minimal (remember the dog walked away from the accident without even a limp!) and then presented me with a quotation from a garage for €1600 roughly twice the value of the car according to current prices on done deal.
I explained to him that this was far beyond my ability to pay to which he became angry and told me I had until this Friday to pay him or he would get the Gaurds involved.
I told him I would contact my home insurance to see what they'd say and be in touch.
I called them this morning and thankfully it is covered under my home policy which was a relief.I've sent them the quote and photos of the damage and they have appointed an independent vehicle assessor to go out and verify that the damage being claimed for matches up with the incident.

So a lot of frustration but it's all being sorted now.

Accidents will happen from time to time but personally I don't see any reason why a 13 year-old shouldn't be out walking his dog.

tom_tarbucket

joe6pack wrote: »

The driver came back to my home yesterday evening and showed me the damage which was IMO very minimal (remember the dog walked away from the accident without even a limp!) and then presented me with a quotation from a garage for €1600 roughly twice the value of the car according to current prices on done deal.
I explained to him that this was far beyond my ability to pay to which he became angry and told me I had until this Friday to pay him or he would get the Gaurds involved.
I told him I would contact my home insurance to see what they'd say and be in touch.
I called them this morning and thankfully it is covered under my home policy which was a relief.I've sent them the quote and photos of the damage and they have appointed an independent vehicle assessor to go out and verify that the damage being claimed for matches up with the incident.

So a lot of frustration but it's all being sorted now.

Accidents will happen from time to time but personally I don't see any reason why a 13 year-old shouldn't be out walking his dog.

Is this lad that called to your house a dodgy character or a bit of a scum bag etc ?

He sounds low quality, 1600 euro for a small bump on a POS car, he sounds like a chancer.

truedoom

Glad it is all being sorted by an independent assessor.

Will make things easier.

Bet your glad you have home insurance

Stheno

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

Is this lad that called to your house a dodgy character or a bit of a scum bag etc ?

He sounds low quality, 1600 euro for a small bump on a POS car, he sounds like a chancer.

Honestly Op is best leaving it to the insurers, their assessors will have seen this a million times over and will decide what the appropriate compensation should be.

MayoAreMagic

DBB
There's no legal backing to what age the child should be when walking a dog, unless the dog is a breed or cross from the restricted breed list. And surely the child can do whatever he likes with or without a dog on a public footpath, as long as it's legal?!

Well hang on, if you want to go that route then there is plenty of legal backing for the driver to claim for every single penny of damage to his car also, is there not? People are very quick to start quoting what is legal when it suits them, yet are being critical of the driver for doing the same thing. His estimate of €500 has since been shown to be not out of the ordinary from other posters experiences. Another poster seems to think that the guy wasn't in control of his vehicle because he couldn't stop it on the spot when the dog ran out in front of him - talk about unreasonable. Really and truly, what has the guy done wrong?

uck51js9zml2yt

I wouldn't be surprised at the cost of repair to be honest.
I had someone rear end me at lights. No obvious damage bar a stiff boot. Cost 3k to fix the underlying damage.
But the assessor will sort it out. They know what it costs.

sillysmiles

joe6pack wrote: »

Accidents will happen from time to time but personally I don't see any reason why a 13 year-old shouldn't be out walking his dog.

Exactly and it is the assessors job to work out how much damage was done. The dog walking away is no indication of their not being damage and there is no reason why the driver shouldn't get compensated for the damage.

In reality while it is frustrating to have to deal with insurance companies at the best of time, it is a bit of a non-story.

The kid was walking the dog - nothing wrong with that.

The dog ran out - these things happen

Got hit by a car - unfortunate timing

The guy who's car it is needs compensation - perfectly understandable

The insurance covers the accident. - That's what they are there for.

Now, how's the dog?

DBB

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

DBB
There's no legal backing to what age the child should be when walking a dog, unless the dog is a breed or cross from the restricted breed list. And surely the child can do whatever he likes with or without a dog on a public footpath, as long as it's legal?!

Well hang on, if you want to go that route then there is plenty of legal backing for the driver to claim for every single penny of damage to his car also, is there not? People are very quick to start quoting what is legal when it suits them, yet are being critical of the driver for doing the same thing. His estimate of €500 has since been shown to be not out of the ordinary from other posters experiences. Another poster seems to think that the guy wasn't in control of his vehicle because he couldn't stop it on the spot when the dog ran out in front of him - talk about unreasonable. Really and truly, what has the guy done wrong?

Well hang on.
My post that you have quoted was in reply to a side issue regarding whether the kid should have been walking the dog, a post that had nothing to do with what the driver is entitled to... I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth by making out I have said something that I didn't, due to it being quoted by you out of context.
Sigh.
What I wrote regarding the driver's entitlements is in black and white so I'm not sure what the problem is.
I have made it clear, several times and from the outset, that I have no issue whatsoever with the car owner getting compensated for the damage to his car. Indeed I was one of the first posters to tell the op he is fully liable for the damages caused by his not-under-effectual-control dog.
What I took issue with, as have many other posters here, is the way the driver pulled a figure out of the air within moments of the accident happening.
He comes across as a chancer as a result.
End of.

Mark Tapley

I don't think anybody disputes the drivers right to claim. He just seems to be going about it in a callous manner. OP I'm glad that child and dog are OK and that you were covered. Like many on here I would put living creatures before inanimate objects.

Lemlin

Mark Tapley wrote: »

I don't think anybody disputes the drivers right to claim. He just seems to be going about it in a callous manner. OP I'm glad that child and dog are OK and that you were covered. Like many on here I would put living creatures before inanimate objects.

It's easy to say that when it's not your car. You'd be amazed how attached some people are to their cars. I see it on a daily basis.

The quote for €1600 wouldn't surprise me. Even the small of scratchest can run into €600 or €700 with garages now. That said, the assessor will set a fair amount with the garage and agree the repairs. I've seen badgers do 3k or more worth of damage to cars.

If the third party can't get a few extra pound that way though, don't be surprised to see him 'develop' an injury.

Mark Tapley

Lemlin wrote: »

It's easy to say that when it's not your car. You'd be amazed how attached some people are to their cars. I see it on a daily basis.

The quote for €1600 wouldn't surprise me. Even the small of scratchest can run into €600 or €700 with garages now. That said, the assessor will set a fair amount with the garage and agree the repairs. I've seen badgers do 3k or more worth of damage to cars.

If the third party can't get a few extra pound that way though, don't be surprised to see him 'develop' an injury.

You could be right but cars are just transport to me. Motorbikes another story. You have to be even more cautious with dogs and motorbikes as some dogs hate them. High repair cost wouldnt surprise me but I wouldnt go round somebody's house demanding money with menaces.

Lemlin

Mark Tapley wrote: »

You could be right but cars are just transport to me. Motorbikes another story. You have to be even more cautious with dogs and motorbikes as some dogs hate them. High repair cost wouldnt surprise me but I wouldnt go round somebody's house demanding money with menaces.

You have to appreciate the other man's view though. Someone's dog has damaged his car. They are now being awkward about paying.

I don't mean to cast aspersions about the OP but we are also only hearing one side of the story.

I'm often amazed about accidents because two different parties will give totally different versions of what happened and both believe that it is exactly what happened.

ZiabR

joe6pack wrote: »

I explained to him that this was far beyond my ability to pay to which he became angry and told me I had until this Friday to pay him or he would get the Gaurds involved.

I am sorry OP, but what? Not only is this guy demanding money that far outweighs the cost of even an entire new bumper for the car but he is threatening you???

Why have you not reported this to the Gardai? Is the damage only to the bumper or is it to the wing on the car too? What was the quote he had for?, what kind of work did the garage claim they needed to do.

People like this really piss me off, I am fuming here even writing this. He is out to make a quick buck on a car that is not worth the effort.

You are going to have to claim against your house insurance and in turn put your quote up for the next few years.

whomitconcerns

logik wrote: »

People like this really piss me off, I am fuming here even writing this. He is out to make a quick buck on a car that is not worth the effort.

But the other party is a doctor who saves orphans in his one form of transport that kids will be afraid to get in if its not perfect and this exact car. The 1600 will cover the cost of the repair and respray and he needs it done urgently hence the higher cost or some orphans will die.......maybe...

Seriously we know one side of the story...so its a bit much to badmouth the other party.