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.
Dogs On Leashes
#16
Posted 19 December 2006 - 11:25 AM
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
Posted 19 December 2006 - 11:45 AM
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
Posted 19 December 2006 - 11:48 AM
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
Posted 19 December 2006 - 11:51 AM
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 Dave - http://davestravels.tv
#20
Posted 19 December 2006 - 11:56 AM
Wouldn't the dog lady's responsibility to follow local leash laws factor in to this case?
Travel, food and drink blog by Dave - http://davestravels.tv
#21
Posted 19 December 2006 - 12:13 PM
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.
#23
Posted 19 December 2006 - 12:16 PM
#24
Posted 19 December 2006 - 12:41 PM
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
Posted 19 December 2006 - 01:08 PM
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
Posted 19 December 2006 - 01:27 PM
#28
Posted 19 December 2006 - 01:52 PM
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)
Hope you're feeling better SWMR - cars are replaceable. Spines not so much.
Sinatra "Here's to the Losers"
#29
Posted 19 December 2006 - 02:09 PM
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
EXP Realty
BRE#01368503
Owner - MyFolsom.com
916 718 9577
#30
Posted 19 December 2006 - 02:12 PM
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
EXP Realty
BRE#01368503
Owner - MyFolsom.com
916 718 9577
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users