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

[Felch]

Originally posted by 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.

It's not a misunderstanding of the law. I understand that the dog was the proximate cause of the accident. I understand that the law is on her side. I just don't care about the law. I care about right and wrong, and personal responsibility.

[Zkribbler]

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?

The people who lived next door to me ten years ago had two boys whose idea of fun was to hide behind parked cars and then suddenly run out in front of cars coming down to hill.

What if one of those drivers had lost control of her car, crashed, and crushed her legs? Liablity on the part of the parents who knew this was going on and did not stop it?

[Lancer]

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...

This thread continues to support my faith in the jury system

What if it were an 8 penny nail?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369

I think she had a personal interest in stating what she did.

That's pretty ridiculous. What you are saying really doesn't make much sense.

[Lancer]

But we'll never get him to understand that so might as well stop trying.