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

[Zkribbler]

I'm still trying to figure out why she never applied her brakes.

[Elok]

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.

I'm not sure about that. It depends on their respective speeds and the dog's weight (Wiki says GS are typically 65-95 lbs, with over 110 possible). Hitting something that heavy at high speed might well do significant damage. In this case it's irrelevant, since as you say the damage was caused by the tree. But I'm just saying, is all.

[Zkribbler]

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.

Remember: We're dealing with a doggie pervert here.

"Buddy the dog had a wheel fetish..."

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Fixed.

Depends on the beamer. If it's a Z-series, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

If it's a 3/5/7-series...just as bad as Civics.

[Lancer]

Cool!

I'm going to go for a drive and see if I can find a dog sitting at the side of the road to evade.

Any of you guys got a dog btw?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by PLATO


Hey...I thought that was what Poly was for.

I jst love dogs and hate driver's that don't pay attention.

Just one question though. It is a parents responsibility to keep their children under control. If it was a kid who "darted" in front of the vehicle and she had killed the kid, then would the parent still be liable?

I presume there would still be a partial liability situation (in a civil court, anyway). I don't know whether the kid is assigned any responsibility (probably depends on the age); but it ultimately depends on the negligence of both parties, again. If the parent should have known the kid could run into traffic, and the kid was of an age that the parent needs to maintain control over the kid ... sure. The driver likely still has fault, if a reasonable driver could have avoided the kid, but I'd say the parent should have some responsibility also.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles


Depends on the beamer. If it's a Z-series, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

If it's a 3/5/7-series...just as bad as Civics.

What do you have against Civics, anyway Civics are among the most well-made cars on the road (evidenced by the fact that they have the highest resale value, as a percentage of original cost, of anything out there over the last decade or so). Some of them even come with engines with some modicum of ability, and most are fairly good on the MPG scale...

I'd rather drive an Accord, but a Civic is not a car to laugh at.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369


What do you have against Civics, anyway Civics are among the most well-made cars on the road (evidenced by the fact that they have the highest resale value, as a percentage of original cost, of anything out there over the last decade or so). Some of them even come with engines with some modicum of ability, and most are fairly good on the MPG scale...

I'd rather drive an Accord, but a Civic is not a car to laugh at.

It's not the car, they're fantastic reliable affordable vehicles.

It's the people who drive them. 'round here, people who drive Civics are highly likely to be terrible terrible drivers. Many reasons:
1) Women drive them a lot
2) It's a common "first car" with very inexperienced drivers
3) It's an EXTREMELY common car with immigrants from countries where they don't have traffic laws or no one pays attention anyway, and they have terrible driving habits that carry over here (never signal, don't understand merge vs yield, don't understand how to do 4-way stops, etc).
4) It's a combination of 2 & 3 of young asian drivers who think it is a RACE CAR and they are BADASS and drive it as such.

[Lancer]

In the Phils you just have to pay the medical expenses, usually a few hundred $ at most, or for the funeral. That doesn't seem fair to me since the person would have died eventually anyway. Ahem.

Anyway this sort of thing in the US is why I have a million $ umbrella liability policy covering everything. I wouldn't want to be wiped out because some lady ran over my dog. (which I don't have any anymore, but you get the idea)

[PLATO]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I presume there would still be a partial liability situation (in a civil court, anyway). I don't know whether the kid is assigned any responsibility (probably depends on the age); but it ultimately depends on the negligence of both parties, again. If the parent should have known the kid could run into traffic, and the kid was of an age that the parent needs to maintain control over the kid ... sure. The driver likely still has fault, if a reasonable driver could have avoided the kid, but I'd say the parent should have some responsibility also.

Okay...an 8 year old is playing in his yard and chases a ball in the street. Some lady who is speeding comes by and creams him. Just which court do you think is going to have the parent give that lady $265K?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lancer


Anyway this sort of thing in the US is why I have a million $ umbrella liability policy covering everything. I wouldn't want to be wiped out because some lady ran over my dog. (which I don't have any anymore, but you get the idea)

Exactly. To many idiots in power in the US

[Lancer]

PLATO for teh WIN!

[Lancer]

Originally posted by PLATO


Okay...an 8 year old is playing in his yard and chases a ball in the street. Some lady who is speeding comes by and creams him. Just which court do you think is going to have the parent give that lady $265K?

This simple statement is pure wisdom.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by PLATO


Okay...an 8 year old is playing in his yard and chases a ball in the street. Some lady who is speeding comes by and creams him. Just which court do you think is going to have the parent give that lady $265K?

None, because the odds are very high the 'value' of the kid would be well above whatever damage the woman sustained.

You did not ask this as part of your question, sir. You asked if the parent would have some responsibility, and I said, depending on the situation, yes. That does not equate to owing the woman anything

[snoopy369]

You are ignoring the basic facts of this case.

In the case in the OP, assuming their calculations are accurate (as we cannot dispute them without knowing the specifics):

Damages to Woman driver: $800,000
Damages to Dog Owner: $1,000 (or so, value of dog).
---
Total liability: $801,000

Portion of liability owed by Woman (65%): $535,000
Portion of liability owed by Owner (35%): $266, 000

Woman: $800,000-$535,000 = $265,000 owed to her
Man: $1,000 - $266,000 = $265,000 owed to woman

Up that $1,000 to a significantly higher amount and you have a very different story.