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

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.

.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register