Driver sues owners of dog that struck his car

[MrBug708]

hxxp://www.startribune.com/local/18716479.html

I understand the guys point of view, but is he taking it too far?

--------------------------------------
DULUTH, Minn. - 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.

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.

"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.

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.

[MikeVic]

I think he should sue.

[vex]

I'd sue as well.

[rkmsuf]

I like it. I say the driver should be awarded punitive damages as well.

[Fidatelo]

Doesn't the driver's car insurance cover that?

[Huckleberry]

I think the right thing to do would be to ask them to pay for the repairs. If they don't, then sue them and include court fees in the suit.

Suing for the time off of work is a little much, though. I wouldn't do that unless I absolutely had to because I wasn't making much at an hourly job. He's driving a '97 Civic, so that's a possibility. But I drive a '96 F-150 and I wouldn't have included it, so you never know.

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Doesn't the driver's car insurance cover that?

He probably has liability only.

[BrianD]

My first thought is that there is no way you should be able to sue a dog owner for something like this. My second thought is that in another thread I argued about the owner of a pitbull being responsible for damages it caused to another dog while off the leash. Is there any way these two thoughts aren't contradictory and hypocritical?

[MikeVic]

Yeah, I guess ask them to pay for the damages first. But they should be held responsible.

Yeah, Fidatelo, I would think so too. Something similar happened to me a couple years ago and it was covered. Well, the guy had to pay my deductible, but that's it.

[Cringer]

a miniature pinscher?

Did the dog leap into the air before the car hit him? I would think that would be a speed bump for a car. A great dane on the other hand.....

[Lathum]

As sick as it is I do see the car owners point.

[Mustang]

It sucks, but I can't disagree with the driver.

Now, if he tacked on 'mental anguish' in claiming that he couldn't drive any more because he lived in fear of tagging another dog well... ya, that would be crossing the line for me.

[GoldenEagle]

$2400 for a dog? Wow.

[sabotai]

I guess I see the guy's point, but I also think he's being a total dick.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I guess I see the guy's point, but I also think he's being a total dick.

exactly.

I would be curious about the guys financial situation.

[14ers]

I am not sure why this would be different than if it was a child? If the driver had hit and killed a child, then tried to sue the parents of the child, how many people here would still be backing the Driver?



Most states give the road right of ways to Animals / Livestock. Sorry, those 5 hundred sheep in the middle of the street may turn a 15 minute commute into a 2 hour nightmare, but that does not give you the right to put the hammer down and part the wool.

[Bad-example]

If the dog got out and bit someone, it would be a slam dunk. Not really seeing any difference from a legal standpoint.

I feel bad for the dog owner but liability is a bitch. (Pun unintentional)

[14ers]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

If the dog got out and bit someone, it would be a slam dunk. Not really seeing any difference from a legal standpoint.

Because in the street the animal has the right of way.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by 14ers

I am not sure why this would be different than if it was a child? If the driver had hit and killed a child, then tried to sue the parents of the child, how many people here would still be backing the Driver?

I like dogs, too, but they are only property in the eyes of the law.

This is not close to hitting a child. This is like somebody letting their piano roll into the street and it hits a passing vehicle. Drivers can be expected to be aware of any pedestrians in the area. They shouldn't be expected to keep their eyes out for random pieces of property being allowed into the street. Well, they can be expected to keep their eyes out but the legal culpability is on the owner that negligently allowed the property to enter the roadway.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by 14ers

Because in the street the animal has the right of way.

Is there really a law like that somewhere? I'd like to see it cited.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by 14ers

Because in the street the animal has the right of way.

There is a huge difference in animals that are currently in the roadway that you come up on (horses, cows) than a dog darting out into the street uncontrolled.

[MikeVic]

I think if a child darted out and got hit, and caused a lot of damage, the parents of the child are liable as well. Why should the guy have to pay for repairs?

[Fidatelo]

How big is the child?

[MikeVic]

I don't know, like 12? Not a baby or anything, but someone that should know not to run across the street.

[14ers]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Is there really a law like that somewhere? I'd like to see it cited.

OPEN-RANGE LAWS

Open-Range laws clearly state that domestic animal owners have no duty to keep animals off of the highway or an open-range and shall not be liable for damage to any vehicle or injury to any person caused by a collision between the vehicle and the animal.
I.R.S. 25-2118 (2000).

[MikeVic]

Well that's a dumb law.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Looks like a very state-by-state (or in some cases, county-by-county, thing)
http://www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/articles22734.asp

[Huckleberry]

So you're arguing that Minnesota has an open range law that applies to a dog? Even under the assumption that this was outside city limits that seems incorrect.

As far as I know Minnesota does not have an open range law and the states that do have laws refer to "livestock" not just domestic animals.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I don't know, like 12? Not a baby or anything, but someone that should know not to run across the street.

Why should the parents be liable for their kid doing something he knows he shouldn't do? If he knows he shouldn't do it, shouldn't he be liable? I think if I was a parent and got sued because my 12 year old damaged some dudes front bumper when he darted into traffic I'd sue my kid for the amount that I'm being sued for, plus maybe some damages to my image and self-esteem.

[Huckleberry]

Heh. Thanks for the link Jon. Interesting how much was left out of 14ers information.

1.) It's an Idaho law he's citing. The situation happened in Minnesota.
2.) Witt v Janagin, 91 Idaho 181, 418 P2d 278(1966). The 9 Circuit has used a 3-prong test to determine whether or not a section of land is deemed open-range. It must be 1) unenclosed; 2) located outside of cities, villages, and herd districts; and 3) land upon which cattle by custom, license, lease, or permit are grazed or permitted to roam. Hubbard v. Howard, 758 F.Supp. 594 (D. Idaho 1990), affd. 927 F.2d 609 (9Cir. 1991).
3.) Idaho Statutes


TITLE 25 ANIMALS CHAPTER 21 ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE 25-2118. ANIMALS ON OPEN RANGE -- NO DUTY TO KEEP FROM HIGHWAY. No personowning, or controlling the possession of, any domestic animal running on openrange, shall have the duty to keep such animal off any highway on such range,and shall not be liable for damage to any vehicle or for injury to any personriding therein, caused by a collision between the vehicle and the animal."Open range" means all uninclosed lands outside of cities, villages and herddistricts, upon which cattle by custom, license, lease, or permit, are grazedor permitted to roam.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Why should the parents be liable for their kid doing something he knows he shouldn't do? If he knows he shouldn't do it, shouldn't he be liable? I think if I was a parent and got sued because my 12 year old damaged some dudes front bumper when he darted into traffic I'd sue my kid for the amount that I'm being sued for, plus maybe some damages to my image and self-esteem.

Because until they reach the age of majority (or are emancipated), you're legally (and financially) responsible for their actions.

And in most cases, you couldn't sue the child because you would in effect be suing yourself, as they are not financially responsible for their own actions, YOU are.

[Huckleberry]

So it sounds like if this happened in Idaho and there were usually cattle grazing in their front yard then 14ers has found a good legal defense.

But since it happened in Minnesota, it was a dog, and I doubt there were cows eating nearby they may want to hire a different attorney.

[14ers]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

TITLE 25 ANIMALS CHAPTER 21 ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE 25-2118. ANIMALS ON OPEN RANGE -- NO DUTY TO KEEP FROM HIGHWAY. No personowning, or controlling the possession of, any domestic animal running on openrange, shall have the duty to keep such animal off any highway on such range,and shall not be liable for damage to any vehicle or for injury to any personriding therein, caused by a collision between the vehicle and the animal."Open range" means all uninclosed lands outside of cities, villages and herddistricts, upon which cattle by custom, license, lease, or permit, are grazedor permitted to roam.

You do understand that a Dog is a Domestic Animal right? It is not like we are talking about some type of Wild Dog here.

[Icy]

It was worse in Spain past year. A guy ran over with his car and killed a kid that was riding his bicycle, then he sued the parents for the damage done to the car as the kid shouldn't ride his bye in a road.

As crazy as it sounds, the driver had all in his favor to win the lawsuit, as you can't ride a bike in a road unless it has enough space for it (that was not the case). The kid parents decided to fight it, called the Tv and explained it all, and it made the police to start a new investigation.

The good news for the kid parents and bad ones for the car owner is that in the new investigation, it was discovered that the car was over the speed limit for that road, so instead of getting any money for the car damage, the car driver is going to be law suited now with unintentional murder charges. I guess that to be that greedy was his lost at the end.

[Huckleberry]

Funny how I knew you would jump on that and ignore the Idaho vs. Minnesota and the open range definition parts. Yes, you're correct, the law covers dogs.

Now would you like to address the rest of the law? You can start with the open range part and move on to the part where Minnesota isn't in Idaho.

The bottom line is that I knew about open range laws but didn't even think about them based on the details of the story posted.

[Mustang]

wow... eerie.

I woke up this morning and I said "Self, you're gonna have a righteous open range laws discussion this morning"

[stevew]

When did Idaho annex Minnesota?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Because until they reach the age of majority (or are emancipated), you're legally (and financially) responsible for their actions.

And in most cases, you couldn't sue the child because you would in effect be suing yourself, as they are not financially responsible for their own actions, YOU are.

Well that's fucking gay!

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Cringer

a miniature pinscher?

Did the dog leap into the air before the car hit him? I would think that would be a speed bump for a car. A great dane on the other hand.....

It was a Honda Civic.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by 14ers

You do understand that a Dog is a Domestic Animal right? It is not like we are talking about some type of Wild Dog here.

Try again:

any domestic animal running on openrange

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

The 9 Circuit has used a 3-prong test to determine whether or not a section of land is deemed open-range. It must be 1) unenclosed; 2) located outside of cities, villages, and herd districts; and 3) land upon which cattle by custom, license, lease, or permit are grazed or permitted to roam.

Put it together and a dog is not what's being referred to.

[SnDvls]

edit: nevermind I see the dog owner's are doing what I would just to see both suits thrown out of the court system

[Fidatelo]

I situation like this is ruff on everyone.

[MikeVic]

I don't see how the dog's owners aren't responsible.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Is there really a law like that somewhere? I'd like to see it cited.

Welcome to Arcadia and Pomona. In Arcadia, it's a crime to hit any of the 200 peacocks that roam the area. These birds also have no fear of cars and will walk into the street and expect the cars to stop for them. I'm not sure of the fine but I would imagine it's fairly large, considering the city. Cal Poly Pomona has a pond that has ducks who live there. It's 1000 dollar fine if you harass, harm, or kill any of the Ducks on campus. That includes if they walk into the street and stop in the middle of the road

[GreenMonster]

Originally Posted by Lathum

exactly.

I would be curious about the guys financial situation.

Well he drives a 97' Honda Civic so I don't think he is killing it yet. He needs the money to fix his car, he most likely isn't rich. If he was asking for more money, other than the cost to repair his car, court fees, and missed work, he may catch a bad rap, but he hasn't done anything I wouldn't do minus the missed work most likely.

[rkmsuf]

yeah I can totally see how you'd compare a child to a dog

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Welcome to Arcadia and Pomona. In Arcadia, it's a crime to hit any of the 200 peacocks that roam the area. These birds also have no fear of cars and will walk into the street and expect the cars to stop for them. I'm not sure of the fine but I would imagine it's fairly large, considering the city. Cal Poly Pomona has a pond that has ducks who live there. It's 1000 dollar fine if you harass, harm, or kill any of the Ducks on campus. That includes if they walk into the street and stop in the middle of the road

Either I misinterpreted the post he made that I was responding to with that question or else I just phrased the question poorly.

I took his previous statement of "in the road the animal has the right of way" as applying to all animals. Which, of course, I didn't believe is true anywhere.

[SnDvls]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I don't see how the dog's owners aren't responsible.

not having all the facts of the case (the story doesn't give them all), but if he was speeding or talking on his cell he could easily be responsible. If he was paying attention we would notice a dog running into the street. Just one example of how the dog owners could easily turn this around on him.

[Tiphnie]

I actually just saw a case like this on People's Court the other day. The dog owner is liable for the costs of the repairs because they lost control of their pet, at least thats how the case was resolved. Although the dog in this case was much bigger than a mini pinscher.

Dogs also in most places have to be on a leash and if they are unleashed the owners are most often liable for any damage they cause unless the animal is on its own property. Mostly

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SnDvls

If he was paying attention we would notice a dog running into the street.

"Noticing" a dog running into the street and having adequate time to avoid the collision are often two dramatically different things.

[SnDvls]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Noticing" a dog running into the street and having adequate time to avoid the collision are often two dramatically different things.

again if he was speeding he wouldn't have adequate time, but then if he was driving the speed limit he most likely would.

I think both cases are stupid and I hope a judge throws them both out and tells them to get out of his court room.

Does someone sue God or the state parks dept. when they hit a deer/moose/elk? No, you can not predict what an animal is going to do.

I'm waiting for all the facts to come out in this case for sure.