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

[Lancer]

Snoopy, whether its a dog or a kid the woman suffered damages, yes?

[snoopy369]

The woman suffered damage regardless of any other fact of law. This is of course independent of whether she is owed damages.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The woman suffered damage regardless of any other fact of law. This is of course independent of whether she is owed damages.

And I'd say she isn't.

[notyoueither]

She didn't 'suffer damages'.

Her own bad driving ****ed her own ass up.

Keep the language straight, please.

[Jon Miller]

so 8 yearold runs into a street

the car hits the 8 yearold, she gets 800k in injuries, the 8 yearold gets 80k in injuries

are you saying that the 8 yearold's parents should pay the lady some money?

I doubt that would happen

JM

[Felch]

Originally posted by Elok
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.

Taking an average of 80 lbs., it's still significantly less massive than even a small car.

One key thing we don't know is how big the vehicle was that Jones was driving. An SUV or full size sedan would obliterate the dog, and maybe wind up with a broken headlight and a smear of blood. A smaller car might crumple a bit, but it still wouldn't result in injuries to the woman. Unless it was some fancy carbon fiber, it probably wouldn't even cause $1000 in damages.

[snoopy369]

It DOES NOT MATTER how massive the dog was. Put a ten penny nail in the street and you can cause a ****ing huge wreck, no problem...

This thread continues to support my faith in the jury system

[Felch]

Originally posted by snoopy369
It DOES NOT MATTER how massive the dog was. Put a ten penny nail in the street and you can cause a ****ing huge wreck, no problem...

I had a flat tire a few weeks ago from driving over a nail. I didn't lose control of my car though, because I don't suck at driving. It's a simple matter of being responsible and handling a perfectly normal situation appropriately. This applies to debris in the road, small animals or children, or anything else.

As far as the physics of the situation go, it absolutely matters how massive the dog is. A small animal, even one charging at a car, does not have the momentum to alter a car's course. She drove into a ditch and then into a tree because she's a terrible driver. The dog is just her lame excuse.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
It DOES NOT MATTER how massive the dog was. Put a ten penny nail in the street and you can cause a ****ing huge wreck, no problem...

CHILL or BE CHILLED.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I plastered the dog that ran in front of my car the other day. 40 MPH down a country road, I'm not swerving into the oncoming lane or off the side of the hill on the other side. Terrible sound, that...

[Asher]

You should sue the owner of the dog and the pet store/person that sold the dog to the owner for damages and psychological trauma.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Felch


I had a flat tire a few weeks ago from driving over a nail. I didn't lose control of my car though, because I don't suck at driving. It's a simple matter of being responsible and handling a perfectly normal situation appropriately. This applies to debris in the road, small animals or children, or anything else.

As far as the physics of the situation go, it absolutely matters how massive the dog is. A small animal, even one charging at a car, does not have the momentum to alter a car's course. She drove into a ditch and then into a tree because she's a terrible driver. The dog is just her lame excuse.

Physics, yes. Law, no.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles

CHILL or BE CHILLED.

I'll take a Lemon Chill, thanks.

[Felch]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Physics, yes. Law, no.

The law is sometimes inappropriate for a situation. That is exactly why we have jury nullification. This is an instance where the law was misapplied, and the jury should have acted more wisely.

[snoopy369]

You obviously aren't going to change your mind here, so I'll stop trying. I only can suggest you talk to some actual lawyers about this... the ones posting in this thread have understoond the verdict (to the extent you can without knowing all of the facts) as far as I can tell.