Tweet
Unreal. I'd love to listen to them decide to what percentage each party is responsible. 
Dog's owner ordered to pay $265,000 in crash
Driver severely injured when she hit animal, sparking 10-year lawsuit
Jun 25, 2008 04:30 AM
Tracey Tyler
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER
Some say Buddy the dog had a wheel fetish, an irresistible urge to chase cars. Others remember him as well-behaved, a dog that looked both ways when he crossed the road.
Whatever the truth, Buddy, a German shepherd, was hit by a car one hot July morning on a country road near Newcastle, triggering a lawsuit that lasted nearly 10 years.
The litigation appeared to reach its end yesterday when Buddy's owner, Walter Niklaus, was ordered to pay $265,013 in damages and prejudgment interest to Carol Jones, the driver, who underwent surgery and spent more than two months in hospital after suffering a shattered right leg.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a jury's finding that Niklaus was 35 per cent responsible for the 1998 crash.
A jury had concluded Buddy did not attack Jones's car, rejecting testimony from Jones and her son, Charles, that the dog darted out of nowhere and charged her vehicle.
Jones said she swerved slightly to avoid the dog, but couldn't. She drove into a ditch, then hit a tree.
The jury concluded she was 65 per cent responsible for the accident and negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout, not properly controlling her vehicle and failing to apply the brakes "in time or at all."
They faulted Niklaus for failing to keep Buddy on his property.
Last December, the case finally reached the appeal court, along with a slew of prominent lawyers. Paul Pape and John Adair, represented the driver, Jones, and argued responsibility for the accident should be split 75-25 in their client's favour.
One of the issues was whether the word of two children should be believed. Cassandra Niles, 9 at the time of Buddy's demise, along with her brother, Johnny, then 11, were at their father's house next to the accident scene.
Each offered a dramatically different account of Buddy's death.
Under questioning in 2002, Cassandra testified that as Buddy sat motionless on the side of the road, a fast-moving car crested a hill and hit him.
Her brother testified that Jones was driving too fast and was in the wrong lane.
Pape and Adair argued the Nile children were not entitled to offer opinion evidence because they were both under 16 and neither had driven a car.
Justice Robert Armstrong wrote that Jones's lawyers were asking the appeal court to second-guess the jury.
"While there is a certain attractiveness to counsel's argument, I simply cannot conclude that the jury's verdict is so plainly unreasonable and unjust that it could not have reached it," he said.
Driver severely injured when she hit animal, sparking 10-year lawsuit
Jun 25, 2008 04:30 AM
Tracey Tyler
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER
Some say Buddy the dog had a wheel fetish, an irresistible urge to chase cars. Others remember him as well-behaved, a dog that looked both ways when he crossed the road.
Whatever the truth, Buddy, a German shepherd, was hit by a car one hot July morning on a country road near Newcastle, triggering a lawsuit that lasted nearly 10 years.
The litigation appeared to reach its end yesterday when Buddy's owner, Walter Niklaus, was ordered to pay $265,013 in damages and prejudgment interest to Carol Jones, the driver, who underwent surgery and spent more than two months in hospital after suffering a shattered right leg.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a jury's finding that Niklaus was 35 per cent responsible for the 1998 crash.
A jury had concluded Buddy did not attack Jones's car, rejecting testimony from Jones and her son, Charles, that the dog darted out of nowhere and charged her vehicle.
Jones said she swerved slightly to avoid the dog, but couldn't. She drove into a ditch, then hit a tree.
The jury concluded she was 65 per cent responsible for the accident and negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout, not properly controlling her vehicle and failing to apply the brakes "in time or at all."
They faulted Niklaus for failing to keep Buddy on his property.
Last December, the case finally reached the appeal court, along with a slew of prominent lawyers. Paul Pape and John Adair, represented the driver, Jones, and argued responsibility for the accident should be split 75-25 in their client's favour.
One of the issues was whether the word of two children should be believed. Cassandra Niles, 9 at the time of Buddy's demise, along with her brother, Johnny, then 11, were at their father's house next to the accident scene.
Each offered a dramatically different account of Buddy's death.
Under questioning in 2002, Cassandra testified that as Buddy sat motionless on the side of the road, a fast-moving car crested a hill and hit him.
Her brother testified that Jones was driving too fast and was in the wrong lane.
Pape and Adair argued the Nile children were not entitled to offer opinion evidence because they were both under 16 and neither had driven a car.
Justice Robert Armstrong wrote that Jones's lawyers were asking the appeal court to second-guess the jury.
"While there is a certain attractiveness to counsel's argument, I simply cannot conclude that the jury's verdict is so plainly unreasonable and unjust that it could not have reached it," he said.
ACK!
Comment