Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Dogs On Leashes


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#16 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 19 December 2006 - 11:25 AM

QUOTE(Al Waysrite @ Dec 19 2006, 11:17 AM) View Post
Your example does prove the exception to the rule though there are not "countless" exceptions. I'm not 100% wrong though, and in swmr's situation he would still be deemed at fault.


If swmr can show he was driving at safe speed, it is highly likely that fault percentages will be assigned. As you are demonstrating, Al, you don't know very much about insurance and physical damage claims. With four parties, each could be assigned 25% fault. Or swmr could be assigned all fault - or none. You can not just assume he will be held liable because you believe incorrect things about these kinds of situations. This is where insurance claims adjusters come in. They will investigate the facts, take photos, talk to witnesses, read the police report, etc. and then assign fault in whatever proportion they deem correct to which ever party or parties they feel had a role in causing the damage.

#17 Orangetj

Orangetj

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,237 posts

Posted 19 December 2006 - 11:45 AM

What street were you on when this happened? People walking their dogs off leash really bother me. My own dog has gotten into several fights while being walked on her leash as a result of off leash dogs running up and attacking her. It's gotten to the point that I seldom walk her in the neighborhood. Thankfully, we have a larger backyard so she can get some exercise.

Of course, people driving too fast and/or following too closely (particularly in neighborhoods) bug the heck out of me as well! I'm not saying swmr was doing this, but I do see it all too often and it really puts everybody around those drivers at risk.

#18 Al Waysrite

Al Waysrite

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts

Posted 19 December 2006 - 11:48 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Dec 19 2006, 11:25 AM) View Post
If swmr can show he was driving at safe speed, it is highly likely that fault percentages will be assigned. As you are demonstrating, Al, you don't know very much about insurance and physical damage claims. With four parties, each could be assigned 25% fault. Or swmr could be assigned all fault - or none. You can not just assume he will be held liable because you believe incorrect things about these kinds of situations. This is where insurance claims adjusters come in. They will investigate the facts, take photos, talk to witnesses, read the police report, etc. and then assign fault in whatever proportion they deem correct to which ever party or parties they feel had a role in causing the damage.

hmmm, so as a former insurance adjuster you think you know more about fault (tort law) than I, a former trial atty, do? Believe me I was dealing with thes issues when you were still in grade school. Under these circumstances fault will be assigned mainly to swmr and perhaps a lesser portion to the dog lady. Only juries and judges assign fault, claims adjusters don't have that authority.

#19 Dave Burrell

Dave Burrell

    Folsom Citizen

  • Moderator
  • 17,584 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Beer, Photography, Travel, Art

Posted 19 December 2006 - 11:51 AM

QUOTE(Orangetj @ Dec 19 2006, 11:45 AM) View Post
What street were you on when this happened? People walking their dogs off leash really bother me. My own dog has gotten into several fights while being walked on her leash as a result of off leash dogs running up and attacking her. It's gotten to the point that I seldom walk her in the neighborhood. Thankfully, we have a larger backyard so she can get some exercise.

Of course, people driving too fast and/or following too closely (particularly in neighborhoods) bug the heck out of me as well! I'm not saying swmr was doing this, but I do see it all too often and it really puts everybody around those drivers at risk.



Good post and it brings back Swmrs point for bringing this up. Dogs should not be allowed to roam around the city unleashed. Any owner who allows that is completely irresponsible not only for their own dogs but for the safety of others around them.

What will it take to teach people to leash their dogs? Do their dogs have to get run over and killed first? Does someone have to take a bat to that dog attacking them? do people need to carry guns?

maybe now the pepper spray lady's action makes a lot more sense

Travel, food and drink blog by Davehttp://davestravels.tv

 


#20 Dave Burrell

Dave Burrell

    Folsom Citizen

  • Moderator
  • 17,584 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Beer, Photography, Travel, Art

Posted 19 December 2006 - 11:56 AM

QUOTE(Al Waysrite @ Dec 19 2006, 11:48 AM) View Post
hmmm, so as a former insurance adjuster you think you know more about fault (tort law) than I, a former trial atty, do? Believe me I was dealing with thes issues when you were still in grade school. Under these circumstances fault will be assigned mainly to swmr and perhaps a lesser portion to the dog lady. Only juries and judges assign fault, claims adjusters don't have that authority.


Wouldn't the dog lady's responsibility to follow local leash laws factor in to this case?

Travel, food and drink blog by Davehttp://davestravels.tv

 


#21 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 19 December 2006 - 12:13 PM

Sorry this happened and hopefully you will be back to your normal self soon!

IMHO & experience Swmr will probably be found to be primarily at fault and responsible. I'm NOT a claims adjuster, but in my 15 years and listening to all kinds of scenarios, I can't ever recall where someone who rear ended someone else, wasn't found to be primarily responsible. Its a possibility that one could make an arguement they weren't responsible, but I would be surprised.

I will also be surprised to discover that the couple walking the dog was cited for having the dog off leash.



#22 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 19 December 2006 - 12:14 PM

QUOTE(Al Waysrite @ Dec 19 2006, 11:48 AM) View Post
hmmm, so as a former insurance adjuster you think you know more about fault (tort law) than I, a former trial atty, do?


I wouldn't think so, but looking at your posts....



#23 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 19 December 2006 - 12:16 PM

I don't hear pistols...
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#24 Al Waysrite

Al Waysrite

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts

Posted 19 December 2006 - 12:41 PM

QUOTE(davburr @ Dec 19 2006, 11:56 AM) View Post
Wouldn't the dog lady's responsibility to follow local leash laws factor in to this case?

this brings up a concept in law known as "negligence per se." A person can be held legally at fault (negligent)if they violate a statute and that violation is the proximate cause of another's harm. However the statute had to be one intended to prevent that kind of harm.
In the case of leash laws the harm to be prevented in mainly to keep dogs from urinating/defecating on others' property or to keep them from acting aggressively toward other people or other animals. A dog running out into the street isn't the type of occurence the law was intended to prevent. So no, her failure to follow the law would not mean she'd be necessarily at fault. Her fault, if any, would be determined only if her action (not leashing the dog) could foreseeably have caused this harm. That concept probably only goes as far as the first vehicle which swerved. She'd probably be liable for damage that vehicle incurred or caused but foreseeability doesn't extend to a lengthy chain of consequences. (anyone who has been through tort law will recall this concept from decades old cases titled "Wagon Mound" 1 and 2).

Is that a satisfactory explanation for you Chad? If not please weigh in further with your expertise.

#25 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 19 December 2006 - 01:08 PM

QUOTE(Al Waysrite @ Dec 19 2006, 12:41 PM) View Post
this brings up a concept in law known as "negligence per se." A person can be held legally at fault (negligent)if they violate a statute and that violation is the proximate cause of another's harm. However the statute had to be one intended to prevent that kind of harm.
In the case of leash laws the harm to be prevented in mainly to keep dogs from urinating/defecating on others' property or to keep them from acting aggressively toward other people or other animals. A dog running out into the street isn't the type of occurence the law was intended to prevent. So no, her failure to follow the law would not mean she'd be necessarily at fault. Her fault, if any, would be determined only if her action (not leashing the dog) could foreseeably have caused this harm. That concept probably only goes as far as the first vehicle which swerved. She'd probably be liable for damage that vehicle incurred or caused but foreseeability doesn't extend to a lengthy chain of consequences. (anyone who has been through tort law will recall this concept from decades old cases titled "Wagon Mound" 1 and 2).

Is that a satisfactory explanation for you Chad? If not please weigh in further with your expertise.


Hmm...so-so. Guess I just don't trust the "expertise" of lawyers who's job it is to find ways to exploit laws, not uphold them equitably.

#26 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 19 December 2006 - 01:27 PM


"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#27 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 19 December 2006 - 01:39 PM

QUOTE(mylo @ Dec 19 2006, 01:27 PM) View Post


Ok mylo, this is me paying attention to you. Happy now?

#28 ngilbert

ngilbert

    Rainbow Bridge Troll

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,368 posts
  • Location:Folsom (duh)
  • Interests:filling out questionaires

Posted 19 December 2006 - 01:52 PM

Those people are stupid. Dogs are territorial pack animals. So in addition to what everyone else has said (endangers the dog, endangers others, causes car crashes) by "walking" their dogs without a leash they're expanding their dogs' own "territory" and basically training their dogs to roam all over the neighborhood if they get out. Also, by letting them walk on ahead they're telling the dogs that they lead the pack and not the humans. This is why according to every dog trainer in the world you never allow a dog to walk through a door in front of you - you go first and have the dog wait to follow you.

My dog is perfect, of course, and has excellent table manners and so on, but I would never walk her without a leash on the street because it's a situation where the dog needs to know it's a controlled situation. And on those occasions when she has gotten out, she basically just sits by the front door waiting for someone to notice she's gone (poor dear) smile.gif

Hope you're feeling better SWMR - cars are replaceable. Spines not so much.
"Here's the last toast of the evening: Here's to those who still believe. All the losers will be winners, all the givers will receive. Here's to trouble-free tomorrows, may your sorrows all be small. Here's to the losers: bless them all
Sinatra "Here's to the Losers"

#29 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,653 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 December 2006 - 02:09 PM

QUOTE(Orangetj @ Dec 19 2006, 11:45 AM) View Post
What street were you on when this happened? People walking their dogs off leash really bother me. My own dog has gotten into several fights while being walked on her leash as a result of off leash dogs running up and attacking her. It's gotten to the point that I seldom walk her in the neighborhood. Thankfully, we have a larger backyard so she can get some exercise.


I have a friend who doesn't walk her dog for the same reason. Her dog has been attacked by others' dogs on a couple of occasions, so now, she just keeps her home.

Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

Keller Williams Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#30 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,653 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 December 2006 - 02:12 PM

QUOTE(Orangetj @ Dec 19 2006, 11:45 AM) View Post
Of course, people driving too fast and/or following too closely (particularly in neighborhoods) bug the heck out of me as well! I'm not saying swmr was doing this, but I do see it all too often and it really puts everybody around those drivers at risk.


This morning I was coming down Blue Ravine. There was some jerk in a gray and blue pickup weaving in and out of traffic. As we approached Target, I was slowing down as the light was red. The woman behind me rode my tail, while the guy in the truck swerved in front of me, apparently unaware of the red light and the cars waiting there. He had to slam on his brakes, as did I, and the woman behind me almost hit me, leaning on her horn and yelling at me through her windshield. I guess she would have rather had me hit the other cars.


Al or BCF, while swmr could be deemed negligent for not allowing enough stopping distance, could the dog-walker be guilty of contributory negligence?

Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

Keller Williams Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users