Comments on: “Minn. driver kills dog, sues owners”

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:56:09 +0000

And here I thought a driver was generally held liable for damages to things struck with his car, whether those things are other cars, or children, or my mailbox.

Last I checked, if you are driving and you hit an illegally parked car you’re still going to be held liable for the collision.

I’ve seen extraordinary fines levied against people who hit goats or coyotes while driving on roads in our national parks…the theory is that the driver should be driving safe enough to stop if a creature should appear.

Is there some special “death to dogs” law that reverses liability if it’s a canine?

By: ColoComment

ColoComment — Thu, 08 May 2008 12:18:32 +0000

I wonder how he suffered $1000+ in auto damage: Min Pins are roughly 10# and 10″ tall (and soft-bodied.) Your car would suffer more damage running over a concrete parking lot curb….

By: L Nettles

L Nettles — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:40:29 +0000

This is hardly newsworthy. I failed to restrain my dog, she ran into to path of a car and was hit damaging the car. I was more concerned for my pet, who did recover, but the accident was my fault and my homeowners insured paid for the damage to the car.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:36:39 +0000

Kim,
You have to wonder if having that seven year old tell about losing his dog was done by the producers of The People’s Court or if they were playing the sympathy card. A seven year old doesn’t own a dog, his parents or guardians do. The owner is responsible for the dog and any damages caused by the dog. The driver is well within his rights to sue. This article is just an attempt to get him to drop the suit.

By: Vic

Vic — Thu, 08 May 2008 06:04:34 +0000

I found this case to be not abnormal. I had a friend who had to buy a Corvette after his dog was struck by the car on the highway and did considerable damage to the car. A homeowner is liable for damages caused by their pets.

By: Joe Bingham

Joe Bingham — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:19:27 +0000

Minnie Driver killed a dog?

By: VMS

VMS — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:03:29 +0000

I don't know Minn. law, and don't have the time to research it, but if this were a NY case, then it would be a loser from the getgo. See Young v Wyman et al. 76 N.Y.2d 1009 (1990).(the mere presence of an unrestrained dog on the street does not give rise to a presumption of negligence on the part of its owner) http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/search/display.html?terms=dog%20car&url=/nyctap/I90_0231.htm

By: markm

markm — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:32:22 +0000

I hope the damages to the car were from swerving in an attempt to avoid the dog, not from hitting a “miniature”… Anyhow, Ely is suing for $1,100. The dog’s owners are countersuing for $2,400. Anyone here expect either of the lawyers involved to come out with less than $10,000???

By: Kim Scarborough

Kim Scarborough — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:46:34 +0000

Ha, I saw a similar case on The People’s Court a long time ago. This burly biker was suing a seven-year-old’s family because his dog ran into the street in front of his Harley… when he ran over the dog and killed it, it caused damages to his bike, for which he was suing. The poor little boy had to rehash the whole story of how his dog died, it was pretty pathetic…

I think I might have let it go were I the biker. That said, he had a good case: the dog wasn’t on a leash, so the owners really were at fault. Wapner ruled for the plaintiff, angering my grandmother (who was watching it with me), but correctly, I think.

By: Greg Dwyer

Greg Dwyer — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:25:21 +0000

I don’t see much of a problem with this. If the family’s car had rolled into the street and he had hit that, would this even be up here? No. It may be a little crass and tactless, but he has every right to collect damages.