# Liability in the case of hitting an animal on a main road.



## davsheep (4 Dec 2009)

This morning I hit a dog on my way to work.

I was driving and a dog ran out in front of my car from the far side of the road, a fairly main road. I didn't see it in time and hit the dog without being able to brake. It was not leashed. The owner (well, the owner's brother who was walking the dog) had two other dogs on leashes with him, on the opposide side of the road, obviously he was about to cross. I stopped the car, he punched the window, and I got out to help the dog and see how it was. I was in shock, first time I hit anything bar a rabbit or two. We called a vet, and got the dog off the road, and into my boot, with the owner. We went to the vet, and my exact words to the owner were "we'll sort something out about that" when he brought up the paying of vets fees, after he said he wasn't going to call the gardai. He is under the impression that means I'm paying all the fees, as he said so the the vet. I didn't confirm this, but neither did I deny. As the dog has some broken limbs this could amount to a lot if surgery is involved. I was going to call the Gardai just to report the incident to cover myself.

The owner thinks I was going too fast, and in my shocked state I agreed with him, partially to placate a very angry man. 

My question is, who is liable here? I am more than willing to pay the initial vets fees, as I love dogs and its the least I could do. But if surgery is involed, it could be up to 1000 quid. 

I've been told no criminal law exists for this, and that it would be a civil case. Does anyone have any experience in this regard? I appreciate that anything posted here cannot be construed as legal advice. 

My feelings are that I am not liable, as the dog was not leashed and was not under his control and was in the middle of the road as a hazard. I feel terrible about it though as I love dogs.


----------



## nai (4 Dec 2009)

The owner of the dog is responsible for it and any damage that may be incurred. 

You could be suing them for damage to your car (or much worse).

Did the owner have a speed gun on him ? If not he's in no position to question your seppd. He is in the wrong here. By all means call into the local station and make a statement but I would advise you to contact the owner and disclaim all liability.


----------



## jhegarty (4 Dec 2009)

The owner is 100% as the dog was not under his control.


----------



## packard (4 Dec 2009)

Your in the clear, he's the one that need to foot the bills. Any hassle ask to see his dog licence and ask why the dog was not on a leash.


----------



## delgirl (4 Dec 2009)

jhegarty said:


> The owner is 100% as the dog was not under his control.


+1

I think the 'Control of Dogs Act 1986' says that "dogs must be kept under effective control in a public place". 

There's also a fine payable for an out of control dog which causes an accident.

If there's any damage to your vehicle, the dog owner may also be liable for the cost of the repair.


----------



## olddoll (4 Dec 2009)

I fully sympathise with you.  So far I have been lucky not to hit any animal and I would dread it happening.

My understanding is that if an animal is straying on a public road and a car hits that animal, then the owner of the animal is liable.  In most cases the claim would be in respect of damage to the car.  In your case you are not concerned about damage to your car but injuries to the dog.  I would believe the owner of the dog is liable for vet fees in respect of the dog and also any damage done to your car.

The fact that the man became so angry and agressive would indicate that he is fully aware and is trying to put the responsibility on to you.

However, the above is my understanding of the situation and maybe it is not that simple.


----------



## davsheep (4 Dec 2009)

olddoll said:


> I fully sympathise with you.  So far I have been lucky not to hit any animal and I would dread it happening.
> 
> My understanding is that if an animal is straying on a public road and a car hits that animal, then the owner of the animal is liable.  In most cases the claim would be in respect of damage to the car.  In your case you are not concerned about damage to your car but injuries to the dog.  I would believe the owner of the dog is liable for vet fees in respect of the dog and also any damage done to your car.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the responses, guys. 

There are no damages to my car that I know and in a case like this I wouldn't even consider claiming off someone who's dog I hit. I feel bad enough as it is. 

As a simple courtesy, I'd be prepared to pay the initial fees to the vet for the emergency visit, but after that I doubt it. Could that be seen as an admission of guilt?


----------



## mathepac (4 Dec 2009)

Sorry to hear about the dog, but glad there were no other injuries.


nai said:


> The owner of the dog is responsible for it and any damage that may be incurred... He is in the wrong here...


Agreed.


nai said:


> ... By all means call into the local station and make a statement ...


Do this as a matter of urgency


nai said:


> ... but I would advise you to contact the owner and disclaim all liability.


I would not advise this course of action but I would (as you are obliged to) contact your insurance company and inform them of everything that happened.

If the dog-owner contacts you, refer them to the Guard who takes your statement.

Just noticed your last post.

You cannot do anything that might be construed as admitting responsibility or accepting liability - the terms of your motor policy should make this clear. Do nothing,  speak with no-one other than the Guards or your insurance.


----------



## davsheep (4 Dec 2009)

mathepac said:


> Do this as a matter of urgency
> I would not advise this course of action but I would (as you are obliged to) contact your insurance company and inform them of everything that happened.
> 
> If the dog-owner contacts you, refer them to the Guard who takes your statement.



You see I don't want to go legal with this. I just want to cover myself in case he does. If I go to the gardai, or the insurance company, that doesn't mean something HAS to be done, does it? Or is it just for the records sake.


----------



## DB74 (4 Dec 2009)

You need to report the incident to the gardai in order that a record is made of the incident.


----------



## packard (4 Dec 2009)

Forget about that fool, he was the one in the wrong, letting the dog run free on a busy road. Guards will ask the one question if it comes to it and it is "was the dogg on a leash"? Answer will be no, and that's the end of that. Owner hasn't a leg to stand on. Pay nothing, clear your head, your just in shock of this, enjoy your day and the weekend.


----------



## Towger (4 Dec 2009)

jhegarty said:


> the owner is 100% as the dog was not under his control.


++1


----------



## davsheep (4 Dec 2009)

Thanks all.

Just reported it to the Gardai, she wouldn't comment either way as to who was liable, said it could be argued I had to show due awareness and control of the car, and also that it could be argued that the dog was not under control so it wasn't my fault.


----------



## sam h (4 Dec 2009)

Davsheep - the Gardai are very slow to clearly state who is at fault, I guess these things can come back to bite them!!

I had an identical sistuation about 15 years ago, complete with angry owner screaming at me and saying how he was going to sue me for all I'm worth!!  So I called the gardai when I got home and explained what happened, the gardai asked if i want to report any damage to my car as the dog owner would be liable (less cautious back then!!)

Report it to your insurance company also to be safe.


----------



## davsheep (4 Dec 2009)

sam h said:


> Report it to your insurance company also to be safe.



Did that there. The rep seemed thoroughly bemused as to why I was doing this...

I'll probably just make a goodwill gesture and pay for the initial fees to the vet, and they can pay the operation fees if they decide to go ahead with it.


----------



## sam h (4 Dec 2009)

Davsheep = I reckon you'd be better to pay nothing as to do so may be seen as admiting liability.  I know you feel bad for the dog, but it was the owners responsibily to keep the dog safe


----------



## PaddyBloggit (4 Dec 2009)

mathepac said:


> Sorry to hear about the dog, but glad there were no other injuries.
> Agreed.
> Do this as a matter of urgency
> I would not advise this course of action but I would (as you are obliged to) contact your insurance company and inform them of everything that happened.
> ...




Follow mathepac's advice ...

...... no ifs or buts about it ... unless you want to cause grief (and expense) for yourself ....


----------



## STEINER (4 Dec 2009)

you have already wasted enough of your time and emotions on this.


The dog ran out in front of you, you braked, did everything you could and kindly helped the walker with the wounded dog.

Don't pay any vet bills beacause it isn't your fault or responsibility to do so.  This is the owner's responsibility and will teach him/her to have dog(s) under effective control.


----------



## Alias (4 Dec 2009)

My understanding has always been that if an animal runs in front of you, you are NOT to swerve to avoid it.  Break, yes, but if you swerve you may hit another car, a pole, a wall, or a person, causing major injuries or death.  The safe thing to do it stay straight on the road, and break.  

I just googled 'should I swerve to avoid a dog?' to see if there's a basis for this.  I didn't find any 'rule' on the first page of results, but I found many a person who'd killed or injured themselves and others trying to avoid an animal on the road.  This story is interesting.

Bottom line, don't feel guilty.  You might have injured his dog, but you and he (and the dog!) are both still alive to tell the tale.


----------



## roro123 (4 Dec 2009)

You could have also mentioned to the guards that you may have felt threatened by the owner when he punched your car. If the owner starts hassling you, that might get him to back off. You sound like an ethical person, but generally if you feel that contributing towards vet fees is morally the right thing to do to acknowledge that you feel somewhat responsible, you are not. The owner seems to be forgetting his own 100% responsibility to have kept the dog under control.


----------



## sse (5 Dec 2009)

davsheep said:


> Did that there. The rep seemed thoroughly bemused as to why I was doing this...
> 
> I'll probably just make a goodwill gesture and pay for the initial fees to the vet, and they can pay the operation fees if they decide to go ahead with it.


 
You've already done everything you have to do - reported the incident to the guards and let your insurance company know.

Don't offer to pay anything else. They're chancing their arm, if they let an animal run free then it's their own lookout, if anything you should be sueing them. If there was any threatening behaviour then I'd report that to the guards too.

SSE


----------



## zag (5 Dec 2009)

You see, I never get this bit about not admitting liability or you'll be in trouble with your insurance company . . .

I can see exactly where this point is coming from, but what I don't get is that this approach can lead to somebody not telling the truth or being encouraged to (shock) tell lies when this person might otherwise not do so.

What I mean is - if I do something stupid in work or at home and someone asks me I will own up and say I did it because, you know, I did.  Or if I might have been partly responsible for something (left the glass near the edge of the table) I will own up.

However in the case of car accidents it seems to be VERBOTEN to talk to anyone of any possible contributory factor.  I just don't get it.

z


----------



## Complainer (5 Dec 2009)

zag said:


> What I mean is - if I do something stupid in work or at home and someone asks me I will own up and say I did it because, you know, I did.  Or if I might have been partly responsible for something (left the glass near the edge of the table) I will own up.
> 
> However in the case of car accidents it seems to be VERBOTEN to talk to anyone of any possible contributory factor.  I just don't get it.
> 
> z


The difference between the work/home incident and a car accident is down to who pays the bill. In the car accident, the insurance company pays the bill. Therefore, it is not unreasonable of them to want to control the incident.

This case is actually a very good example of this. The driver feels bad, but it may well be that he has no legal liability.


----------



## Towger (5 Dec 2009)

Complainer said:


> The difference between the work/home incident and a car accident is down to who pays the bill. In the car accident, the insurance company pays the bill. Therefore, it is not unreasonable of them to want to control the incident.



If you hit a dog with a car the dogs owner is at fault. EOS. The dogs owners house hold insurance may cover the damage to the car, if they have any. BTW I belive the rules are different for cattle, so maybe the title should be changed.


----------



## mercman (5 Dec 2009)

If you hit a cow, the owner is liable, a sheep no, and a dog owner liable again. I had a very nasty incident some time ago when  a cow jumped off a wall onto my car on the main Galway Dublin Road and wrecked the car, nearly me as well. Guards arrived and I asked them to tag the tag off the animal. Well the tag got lost, my Insurance Company blamed me as I was claiming for a new car. The end of the story was that the Insurance Company coughed up for a new car without effecting my NCB, as it was not my fault and of course the owner of the beast became the Invisible man.

So bottom line, if you own animals you are responsible for where they go and what they do. And that is the law.


----------



## Complainer (5 Dec 2009)

Beware of those who tell you that the law is black & white on these things. If (for example) the car driver was going at 100kmph in a residential estate while sending a text at the time that he hit the dog, allocation of blame may not be so obvious. It is not black and white. That's why we have courts. In this case, I don't think there is any liability on the car driver, but there is nothing explicit in law either way.


----------



## Marie (5 Dec 2009)

That last point is very important.  Whilst the dog's owner/minder is responsible for having pets under control on the public highway, the owner/driver of a vehicle is responsible for always maintaining a speed, distance and visibility ensuring the safety of others.  The dog-walker had the other two dogs on leads.  The one which was crossing the road was presumably considered sufficiently safe and well-trained (most dogs are!) to cross "on command" when it was safe to do so.

Having frequently witnessed - as both a driver and pedestrian - pedestrians having to run the last few feet, or even the second part of the road, to get from under the wheels of impatient drivers I would caution that "there are two sides to every story".

An anecdote.  A friend's daugher took her driving-test a few weeks ago.  She failed.  During the test, as she approached a pedestrian crossing in a 30-mile-an-hour built-up residential area an older adult in a mobility-scooter was coming towards her, on the pavement.  As he had not actually REACHED the pedestrian crossing and there was no indication he wanted to cross she did not slow or stop but drove across the crossing, then saw in her rear-view mirror that the old man had, in fact, crossed at the crossing.

The Examiner had also noticed.  The "fail" was on the grounds that she was not driving sufficiently defensively to avoid a possibly serious accident, since the mobility-scooter was adjacent to the crossing which was sloped to facilitate pushchairs and wheelchairs.  Note......."_adjacent"._


----------



## Vanilla (7 Dec 2009)

Nothing is black and white in a common law country. It certainly depends on the circumstances. For eg anyone who has experience of trying to herd cows/cattle on a road will have stories to tell you of ignorant drivers who cause accidents. Very few drivers seem to realise that a person herding animals on the road has the priority and that it is a stupid, stupid thing to do to try to drive through a herd of skittish, large animals.


----------



## Bronte (8 Dec 2009)

davsheep said:


> The owner thinks I was going too fast, and in my shocked state I agreed with him, partially to placate a very angry man.
> 
> .


 
Well were you going too fast?  This case is far from black and white, you also have not disputed in front of the vet that you would pay his bills.  Does the Vet think you are paying the bills?  Does he also think that you have agreed you are liable for the accident.


----------

