Dog's owner "35% responsible" for car hitting dog, must pay $265K

[Winston]

Originally posted by Felch
The dog didn't cause the damage. The crappy driver, who swerved and hit a tree, caused the damage.

A German shepherd simply doesn't have the mass to hurt somebody in a car. It wouldn't do much more than ding the bumper.

Please note that I was making a general comment, as clearly noted in my post.

But.. If the dog in this case had been under the control of its owner, no accident would've occurred. I'm sure you'll agree?

[Wiglaf]

Juries should be evaporated. Anyone who has seen Gene Hackman in Runaway Jury knows that supercomputers and nerds can control juries from remote locations, starting with the selection process (JUROR #2'S BLUE EYES STATISTICALLY SUGGEST HE WILL VOTE FOR DEFENSE, PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE /HACKMAN COUGH) and going all the way through the trial phase (SOMEBODY GO TO JUROR #5's HOUSE AND KILL HIS FAMILY /HACKMAN GRIN).

We should move towards having sophisticated robots or judge panels and avoid this whole mess .

[Asher]

Originally posted by Winston


Please note that I was making a general comment, as clearly noted in my post.

But.. If the dog in this case had been under the control of its owner, no accident would've occurred. I'm sure you'll agree?

If the Danes were under control, they'd never make a claim about Hans 0.

You can't control all dogs. Even the Great Danes.

[Winston]

Ø

[-Jrabbit]

Runaway Jury

[Asher]

Originally posted by Winston
Ø

It's my island, I'll call it what I'd like.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
We should move towards having sophisticated robots...

[Felch]

Originally posted by Winston


Please note that I was making a general comment, as clearly noted in my post.

But.. If the dog in this case had been under the control of its owner, no accident would've occurred. I'm sure you'll agree?

I agree with that statement, but not with the implications.

The dog is dead, so the owner has already suffered the consequences of his negligence. Failing to control the dog means that the driver isn't liable to the dog owner, and that the owner is liable for damage directly caused by the dog. However, the dog did not cause the majority of the damage. It merely established a situation where a careless driver suffered for losing control of her vehicle.

If the dog had bitten someone then the owner should be held accountable. I think that is the reason for the Danish law. It's simply not reasonable to blame a 30-40 kg dog for damage to a motor vehicle.

What bothers me about this is that it is so clear from the facts that the driver was negligent in her duty to maintain control of the vehicle, but is rewarded by a justice system that doesn't care about personal responsibility.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Felch
I agree with that statement, but not with the implications.

The dog is dead, so the owner has already suffered the consequences of his negligence. Failing to control the dog means that the driver isn't liable to the dog owner, and that the owner is liable for damage directly caused by the dog. However, the dog did not cause the majority of the damage. It merely established a situation where a careless driver suffered for losing control of her vehicle.

If the dog had bitten someone then the owner should be held accountable. I think that is the reason for the Danish law. It's simply not reasonable to blame a 30-40 kg dog for damage to a motor vehicle.

What bothers me about this is that it is so clear from the facts that the driver was negligent in her duty to maintain control of the vehicle, but is rewarded by a justice system that doesn't care about personal responsibility.

Good points. I would tend to mostly agree with you. Except that I'm not bothered as you are that the driver was rewarded, as you call it. I think the split responsibility ruling is rather straight-forward evidence of the opposite.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Felch


I agree with that statement, but not with the implications.

The dog is dead, so the owner has already suffered the consequences of his negligence. Failing to control the dog means that the driver isn't liable to the dog owner, and that the owner is liable for damage directly caused by the dog. However, the dog did not cause the majority of the damage. It merely established a situation where a careless driver suffered for losing control of her vehicle.

If the dog had bitten someone then the owner should be held accountable. I think that is the reason for the Danish law. It's simply not reasonable to blame a 30-40 kg dog for damage to a motor vehicle.

What bothers me about this is that it is so clear from the facts that the driver was negligent in her duty to maintain control of the vehicle, but is rewarded by a justice system that doesn't care about personal responsibility.

How is the driver negligent? There is no assertion in the OP that she did anything but swerve to avoid the dog, which is a natural reaction to being startled. By your standards any driver who hits any animal is negligent since they should have been going slower. Does that really seem reasonable to you?

Again, the most likely scenario is that the dog was not leashed. That, by itself, incurs full liability IMO unless there are some other extenuating circumstances that have not been cited.

[snoopy369]

SpencerH, the driver was cited as negligent for "failing to keep a proper lookout" according to the OP (ie, not paying attention to the road), while the dog owner was negligent for not leashing his dog.

According to the doctrine of partial responsibility (Wezil please jump in at any point here...), the jury determined that the dog not being leashed contributed 35% to the accident, and the driver's negligence contributed 65% to the accident. Hence the judgement. More than likely, they determined that the driver should have been able to avoid the accident (hence the majority of the responsibility), but the dog owner also contributed.

Felch, you are mistaken in considering the amount of damage physically done by the dog versus that done by the car. This is mostly irrelevent. The only question at hand is, to what degree did each contribute to causing the accident to happen. The answer is that the dog owner and the driver both contributed - ie, the dog owner failed to leash his dog and the driver failed to properly watch out for obstruction.

Also, nobody is being 'rewarded' here. The driver had probably $800k in medical bills (and possibly lost wages and such), $265k of which are being charged to the dog owner. The driver is still paying quite a bit for her injuries... She is not being 'rewarded', but the dog owner is being charged for his negligence. Had he leashed his dog, she would not have had $800k in medical bills, so he bears some responsibility.

Note that this is only an issue because of the vastly differing amounts of damage done; had the dog owner also suffered $800k in damage (say), the total responsibility for the $1.6m in damage would have been $1.05m to her, $550k to him, so $250k payment made to him by the driver. However, he did not, so he must bear his portion of the damage.

[Asher]

The driver had probably $800k in medical bills (and possibly lost wages and such)

This is in Canada...there is no medical bill. I have a hard time imagining a month in the hospital and a broken leg is worth $265,000 alone.

The number is not determined sensibly or rationally as far as I can tell.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by PLATO
If I was Niklaus, I would sue for 65% of the pain and suffering the death of his close companion, Buddy, obviously cost him.

Under California law, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress arising out of physicial injuries to another can only be the basis of a lawsuit when (a) the plaintiff observes the injury occurring and (b) when the "other" is a close family member. Dogs don't count.

This is in Canada...there is no medical bill. I have a hard time imagining a month in the hospital and a broken leg is worth $265,000 alone.

There's an informal rule of thumb which holds that physical injuries are valued at three time medical expenses. So, $66,500 in medical expenses could result in $265,000 in damages.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Who decided this, the local PETA-mafia? If a dog darts out at a car there is no way the driver should be in any way responsible for the accident. What a bull**** country.

QFT.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles

The driver had probably $800k in medical bills (and possibly lost wages and such)

This is in Canada...there is no medical bill. I have a hard time imagining a month in the hospital and a broken leg is worth $265,000 alone.

The number is not determined sensibly or rationally as far as I can tell.

I'm not the lawyer and have no way of arguing that, since I don't argue things I don't know anything about factually. You can feel free to argue against it all you like though

Assuming the $800k figure is accurate, then the judgement is reasonable. If/when we get data to clarify the rationale behind the figure, that can be discussed