Who Has a Case?
mid-morning on Wednesday, the 7th of May 2008 by Chad
Not another man bites dog story.
The driver of a 1997 Honda Civic that struck and killed a dog near Cloquet is suing the dog’s owners for damage done to his vehicle.
Jeffery Ely was driving on the night of Jan. 4 when Fester, a miniature pinscher, squeezed past owner Nikki Munthe as she was letting in her other dog and ran out onto the road. Ely’s car struck Fester, killing the 13-pound dog instantly.
Now Ely is suing the Munthes for about $1,100 for damage to his car, time he had to take off from his two jobs to get the car repaired, and court fees.
First the disclaimer: Last year someone in town was letting their dog run free, it ran across the road and I hit it with my truck. I was in the far right lane during heavy traffic going under the speed limit, 40mph. I hit the dog in front of a woman who was walking her own dog just over on the sidewalk. The dog was dead on impact.
I had no damage to my truck but I would have been even more pissed that someone left their dog running free had I any damage.
Pieces of the bumper were propelled into the radiator when it hit the dog, Ely said, necessitating a replacement. Ely maintains he didn’t have problems driving until after the accident and that the radiator issues were not pre-existing.
Ely said he feels sorry for the Munthes’ loss but, as a dog owner himself, feels that they must be responsible for their pets’ actions.
Agreed. Another disclaimer: the dog I owned growing up was running loose and was hit by a car and killed. It was our fault for letting the dog run free, not the driver’s fault.
“I have complete compassion for them,” Ely said. “I know how it feels. I love dogs. But once you get them, they are your responsibility.”
Munthe said she has always been worried about the busy road the family lives on.
“We would have never let him off-leash because we’re so terrified of this road,” she said.
The case will be heard in St. Louis County Court on Friday.
This should be straight forward. The Munthe’s home insurance should pay to have the car repaired. Their actions, even though apparently accidental, caused damage to someone else’s property.
The Munthes have filed a $2,400 countersuit against Ely for the cost to buy Fester, the time they had to take off work for court appearances, and the cost of buying a dog to replace Fester.
What? Now this is ridiculous. I know these people feel a loss but it is their fault. Not only that, they’re double dipping. If someone damaged my car in an accident, they don’t pay for the current car and a new car. I’m sorry for their loss but this is the abuse of the system. In my opinion the Munthes deserve to lose their case and have to pay full damages to Ely, along with his court costs. These people are the problem. They may be perfectly nice decent people normally but not in this case. They should have immediately offered to pay either out of their own pockets or filed a case with the insurance company.
Via FOXNews.com
![[del.icio.us]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Sphere]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Email]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
May 8th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Hmm, sounds like the driver should file for negligent infliction of emotional distress… I’m sure the poor guy has nightmares of Fester flying over his windshield. He might never be able to drive again. (please note some sarcasm here, I believe that this society is too litigious, but I’d be out of a job if they weren’t)
The pet owners are inexcusable. They failed to keep their pet safe. And then to sue for the dog and the replacement dog, takes as certain special person. All this for something that the two insurance companies could have easily sorted out.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Are you kidding me? This guy kills a dog in his car and expects to be paid for damages? I leave aside the fact that a 13 pound dog is unlikely to deal any damage to a vehicle at any speed legal in a residential neighborhood. “Pieces of the bumper were propelled…”? Bullshit! I was struck from behind by a 1000 pound car and my bumper remained COMPLETELY intact. The driver is responsible for maintaining control of his own vehicle, that is the law. For example, if someone is struck from behind in their car and pushed into the car in front of them, they are responsible for the damages to the car in front of them- you are responsible for whatever YOU hit. It’s his fault for not avoiding the dog. Furthermore, pedestrians have right of way no matter the circumstance. It is my opinion that a dog is a pedestrian, therefore it had right of way. If it had been a toddler who ran into the road when its mother had turned her back, would the driver have been in position to sue? It seems to me that a toddler and a dog have similar intelligence, and would therefore be similarly culpable. Should the mother pay damages in that case?
May 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Somehow I doubt the guy took positive actions to kill the dog. I’m pretty darn sure he didn’t drive his car through the family’s yard. Or chase the poor dog down the street like some video game.
Where does it say residential road? Sounds more like the family lives on or right next to a highway.
What car only weighs 1000lbs? Small cars weigh at least 2000.
Next, your example about being pushed into the car in front of them is ABSOLUTELY false, as I have been in a chain accident of 8+ cars AS THE FINAL CAR. The final car was responsible until it was found out that GM tried to experiment with self-bleeding brakes, as in a 300ft long line of brake fluid going down the road.
Pedestrians do NOT have unlimited right of way. That is false, or else you could walk onto the interstate. Another hint that your idea is completely false is the mere existence of jaywalking laws. And an animal as a pedestrian? Somehow I doubt the law will see it that way.
And as for a toddler: I certainly hope so. If I was driving on a highway at 50 MPH and a kid jumps onto the road, you’d bet I’d sue the parents for not properly supervising their kid. Of course that assumes I’m driving properly for conditions. Should the driver be distracted, speeding, etc, then that deserves to be influential on the outcome of the case. But if a driver is doing exactly what they’re supposed to and a toddler jumps out from behind something at the last second, and it is physically impossible to stop in time, do you think the driver is held criminally liable? Somehow I doubt it.
Anyone can sue anyone else for anything they want. Winning is something else entirely of course…
But the question is, who is at fault. From the description of the accident, the driver did nothing wrong while driving. Wasn’t speeding/intoxicated/fumbling with radio/yapping on cell phone. We have to assume he was driving for conditions. If he wasn’t then that will come out in the trial. On the other hand you have the admittedly unfortunate family who failed to control their animal. If the dog went out and bit someone, who do you think would be at fault in that case? What entity would be liable for the damages there? The families home owners insurance. So now this dog instead runs out into the road and gets hit by a car. Same deal there.
As for damage, I’ve been in the slightest of accidents where there was thousands in damage, and in other accidents where you couldn’t even notice. Either way, do you want to hit a 13 lb block of muscle and bone while going 45-55 mph?