# Collision with an unleashed dog, am I liable for any costs?



## JP1234 (1 Nov 2007)

_(First off - sorry if this is in the wrong forum, not sure whether it counts as Car  Related, Legal or Misc.)

_Driving home about an hour or so ago a dog ran out in front of my car and we collided. I was only going about 35-40kph in a 50kph zone as it was approaching the turn off for my street, and I had already noted the dog at the road side. As the dog ran out I did an emergency stop but the dog appeared to run toward my car and I felt a slight thud. I looked around, dog seemed fine as was running off towards it's owner! At this point I got out of the car (mainly to check my car!) at which point the female dog owner came towards me screaming about hitting her dog. I pointed out to her that the dog seemed unharmed and if anything my car  would have come off worse ( I drive a Clio, the dog a full sized German Shepherd) and reminded her that dogs are supposed to be on a leash while in public places but she shouted at me for not taking care and took my reg down saying she was going to report me and claim vet's fees!  I offered to call the guards there and then and asked for her name and address but she skipped off with both her dogs trotting next to her. 

It shouldn't be a big deal but now I am wondering should I inform my insurance or the guards and would I be held liable for her "costs" ( if she decides to put in some made up claim) 

There were no witnesses around and the area is not particularly well lit so it wouldn't be easy to see a dark coloured dog running out anyway.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Nov 2007)

Can't see how you could be liable in the circumstances!


----------



## sam h (1 Nov 2007)

Had a similar thing few years back (screaming owner & all!!).....the gardai said that the dog owner is completely at fault & the car owner can claim for damages to their car!!  The dog should have been on a lead.

I'd call the gardai just to have it on record.


----------



## Crugers (1 Nov 2007)

sam h said:


> ...The dog should have been on a lead...


 
According to 
S.I. No. 442/1998:​CONTROL OF DOGS REGULATIONS, 1998​*Section 5.* 
(1) This article shall apply to every:—
...
(e) German Shepherd (Alsatian),

(2) A person shall not permit a dog to which this article applies to be in a public place unless such dog is:—
(i) securely muzzled; and
(ii) being led by a sufficiently strong chain or leash, not exceeding two metres in length, by a person over the age of sixteen years who is capable of controlling the said dog.

So the owner should have had the dog muzzled and on a lead...

I'd say she hasn't a leg to stand on...

Was there damage to your car?

Since she failed to "... keep it under effectual control, contrary to section 9 of the Act..."(CONTROL OF DOGS ACT, 1986). She could be liable for the damage...


----------



## Stifster (2 Nov 2007)

Did you get the dog's name?


----------



## truthseeker (2 Nov 2007)

besides the fact a dog of that breed should be on a leash in public, as a motorist you are not supposed to stop for a dog. When I did my driving test a dog ran out in front of me and his owner immediately behind him, I had started to brake when I saw the dog - the tester joked with me I was lucky that a person had run along behind cos I would have failed if Id stopped for a dog by itself.


----------



## JP1234 (2 Nov 2007)

Thanks all, I checked my car and no damage so as far as I care the matter is done with. I rang the Guards this morning for a bit of advice, their attitude was it was a non event but I asked them to take my name and details just in case.   For some reason I was convinced I was supposed to stop for a dog, though I'd be more concerned for myself and the car than the dog ( sorry animal lovers!) 

I guess I will just have to wait and see if this woman does try anything on now.


----------



## truthseeker (2 Nov 2007)

Id say itll be cool - she was probably just upset and got a shock cos her dog got hit by a car. Once she has gone away and calmed down and dog is fine she will forget about it. If anyone close to her has any sense they will have told her by now that she is actually the one who is liable.

Id a friend who during her driving test hit a cat who landed on the bonnet, she kept driving and pulled in when safe to do so, cat shook itself and ran off unharmed, instructor stopped test there and then and passed her saying that if she'd stopped for the cat she would have failed immediately.

So you dont stop for dogs OR cats - the rationale being that you could cause an accident by stopping suddenly or swerving to avoid a dog or cat and end up harming a human being - and the life of a human being is deemed as more important than a cat or dog.


----------



## ClubMan (2 Nov 2007)

truthseeker said:


> So you dont stop for dogs OR cats - the rationale being that you could cause an accident by stopping suddenly or swerving to avoid a dog or cat and end up harming a human being - and the life of a human being is deemed as more important than a cat or dog.


Just curious - is this explicitly stated in the rules of the road?


----------



## truthseeker (2 Nov 2007)

I dont know Clubman, Im basing it on what my own tester told me and what my friends experience was. 

I did have a driving instructor who said the same but at that time I was more concerned with not actually crashing into stationary objects so I was unconcerned with the dog/cat information


----------



## z103 (2 Nov 2007)

> and the life of a human being is deemed as more important than a cat or dog.


hmmm...That's debatable.


----------



## ClubMan (2 Nov 2007)

Nothing specifically about not stopping for cats/dogs/etc. in this sort of context in the rules of the road as far as I can see. I guess it's covered under some more general heading or something...


----------



## swordshead (2 Nov 2007)

I thought you had to brake/stop for a dog but not for a cat..as a cat is technically classed as a wild animal i.e. its illegal to hit a dog and keep going but fine for a cat (not that ones better than the other)! Heard it years ago but would love to know if its true!


----------



## truthseeker (2 Nov 2007)

leghorn said:


> hmmm...That's debatable.


 
agreed.

So I wonder what the truth of the matter is? Can you hit cats and not dogs or are you supposed to hit both? Where would you even find the answer - its not in the Rules of the Road.


----------



## BlueSpud (2 Nov 2007)

> and the life of a human being is deemed as more important than a cat or dog.


 

Hey, dont sell yourself short there mate.

Still, gives one food for thought.  Now that I know that I can run down all the footpath fouling doggies in the neighbourhood with complete immunity, I will have fun on the way home tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Crugers (2 Nov 2007)

BlueSpud said:


> Hey, dont sell yourself short there mate.
> 
> Still, gives one food for thought. Now that I know that I can run down all the footpath fouling doggies in the neighbourhood with complete immunity, I will have fun on the way home tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
Don't be too sure! It may come back and bite you some day!  


You really need to run down the owners!
They are the ones responsible by law for cleaning up (what) doggies do, not the dogs!


I presume that, if it is safe to do so, stopping before hitting either dog or cat is allowed.
From some of the posts it sounds as if it is compulsory *not* to stop in any and all circumstances!

And what is the situation when it comes to motorcycles? A nice big German Shepherd might make a mess on the bumper of a car but I wouldn't fancy colliding with one on two wheels?

If, as required by law, the owners kept their dogs under effective control then these events would not happen. Bloody irresponsible dog owners!


----------



## Crugers (2 Nov 2007)

Whoops


----------



## kiwifruit (2 Nov 2007)

Seems WOOF justice to me!!!!!!!


----------



## RainyDay (2 Nov 2007)

Crugers said:


> I'd say she hasn't a leg to stand on...


What about the dog?


----------



## Crugers (2 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> What about the dog?


From the OP's original post it seems the dog had fo(u)r sure even after being hit by the car!


----------



## TreeTiger (2 Nov 2007)

truthseeker said:


> Id a friend who during her driving test hit a cat who landed on the bonnet, she kept driving and pulled in when safe to do so, cat shook itself and ran off unharmed, instructor stopped test there and then and passed her saying that if she'd stopped for the cat she would have failed immediately.
> 
> So you dont stop for dogs OR cats - the rationale being that you could cause an accident by stopping suddenly or swerving to avoid a dog or cat and end up harming a human being - and the life of a human being is deemed as more important than a cat or dog.



I've searched through the Rules of the Road and this is what I could find in relation to animals, not very clear, and certainly not specific to dogs or cats:

Page 87:
As a driver, you *must *always be aware of your speed and judge the appropriate
speed for your vehicle, taking into account:
driving conditions,
other users of the road,
current weather conditions,
all possible hazards, and
speed limits.
Driving conditions relate to the volume of traffic around you and the quality of
the road.
Other users of the road include motor-cyclists, cyclists, pedestrians, school
children, animals and all others you as a driver *should *anticipate will or may be
on the road.
Possible hazards include anything you can see that can, and will, give rise to an
emergency, such as oncoming traffic if you are turning onto a major road. They
also include anything you cannot yet see and anything you can reasonably
expect to happen, such as a pedestrian walking onto the road in front of you, a
child running onto the road between parked cars, and or animals on the
roadway. It includes your own physical and mental state while driving (for
example whether you are stressed or tired) and the condition of your vehicle.

Page 174:
*Animal traffic*
Always slow down and be prepared to stop when approaching or overtaking
animals. If a person in charge of animals gives a signal to slow down or stop,
you *must *obey it. Avoid using your horn if animals are in front of you, as it
might frighten them.

I can't figure out how someone could be failed in a test for taking (or not taking) an action that isn't clear in the Rules of the Road.

Interested to know as my son is doing the test soon.


----------



## Marie (3 Nov 2007)

TT - thank you for that research which fits with my own understanding of the pros and cons of driving and animals, both wild and domestic.  If what some of the posters above write is correct then a motorist who bulldozes through a flock of sheep killing a couple on a Donegal lane is 'entitled' to do so, or hurtle through the Scottish or French countryside mowing down geese, collies (which have a way of coming out onto the road to have a good bark at every passing vehicle!!) and wildlife.

The person behind the wheel is responsible for hazard-perception and avoiding collisions.  In addition there is the _absolute _rule of driving at a speed appropriate to the road and environmental conditions (not.... NOT! at the 'maximum for the area' especially if it is a built-up urban area with parked vehicles) there are also rules about driving and animals in most situations.

Drivers must be particularly alert to horse-riders and vehicles transporting horses or livestock especially when overtaking and pass wide and slow.  Drivers must be particularly alert adjacent to farmland.  Drivers must be particularly alert to wildlife - especially large animals such as deer - and I have always understood that you must report injuring or killing a deer or stag to the police.


----------



## Marie (3 Nov 2007)

This thread surfaces even more arguments to support the introduction of stringent and compulsory driving tests!!!!


----------



## ClubMan (3 Nov 2007)

You mean the fact that many posters who are presumably drivers don't seem to know the rules themselves?


----------



## ang1170 (3 Nov 2007)

..


----------

