Claim against dog owner

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Jeff, Apr 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    While on a solo training ride I hit a loose dog in a town with a leash law. I went down and got some
    road rash, no big deal. My bike got a little scrapped up and that bothers me. I filed a report witht
    he town and the dogs ownwer was issued a fine.

    I am considering mailing the dogs ownwer a bill for the cost of replacement parts that were scraped
    up as a result of the accident, derailer, skewer, pedals, seat, tape, jersy and shorts. Alll in all
    it totals $750.

    My bike still works fine but why should I have to suffer the loss of value. Should I just
    accept that these things happen and thats that or should I go through the motions of trying to
    get some money?

    I called my insurance company and they say they have no part in this, it me and the owners
    insurance company.

    Anyone else have a similar situation? Jeff. Rhode Island [email protected]
     
    Tags:


  2. "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > While on a solo training ride I hit a loose dog in a town with a leash law. I went down and got
    > some road rash, no big deal. My bike got a little scrapped up and that bothers me. I filed a
    > report witht he town and the dogs ownwer was issued a fine.
    >
    > I am considering mailing the dogs ownwer a bill for the cost of replacement parts that were
    > scraped up as a result of the accident, derailer, skewer, pedals, seat, tape, jersy and shorts.
    > Alll in all it totals $750.
    >
    > My bike still works fine but why should I have to suffer the loss of value. Should I just
    > accept that these things happen and thats that or should I go through the motions of trying to
    > get some money?
    >
    > I called my insurance company and they say they have no part in this, it me and the owners
    > insurance company.
    >
    > Anyone else have a similar situation? Jeff. Rhode Island [email protected]

    Without giving you the almost mandatory rbr insult, you should just accept the situation with the
    same attitude you did with the road rash.

    Why?

    What if you had crashed on a wet road?

    Your bike still works fine.

    Your bike parts and clothes, if you tried to sell them on ebay or rbm would be worth a fraction of
    $750 even before your crash.

    Although racing implies a recognition of potential harm to your equipment, you wouldn't expect to be
    reimbursed in that situation.

    BTW, if you went to the trouble to make and receive a claim against the dog's owners (who probably
    aren't too happy with you or any riders at this point anyway), had you considered giving the
    replaced items to the dog's owners/insurance company or are you just interested in profiting from
    the mishap?
     
  3. "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >While on a solo training ride I hit a loose dog in a town with a leash law. I went down and got
    >some road rash, no big deal. My bike got a little scrapped up and that bothers me. I filed a report
    >witht he town and the dogs ownwer was issued a fine.

    To avoid future incidents, do yourself a favour and get a 'Air Zound II' Bike Horn. This little
    thingie will scare the poop out of dog + owner, if they dare to cross the road ;o)... Quite
    effective on Mountain-Bikers, Skaters and Joggers also ;o))).
     
  4. In article <[email protected]>, "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Jeff" <[email protected]pam.net> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > While on a solo training ride I hit a loose dog in a town with a leash law. I went down and got
    > > some road rash, no big deal. My bike got a little scrapped up and that bothers me. I filed a
    > > report witht he town and the dogs ownwer was issued a fine.
    > >
    > > I am considering mailing the dogs ownwer a bill for the cost of replacement parts that were
    > > scraped up as a result of the accident, derailer, skewer, pedals, seat, tape, jersy and shorts.
    > > Alll in all it totals $750.
    > >
    > > My bike still works fine but why should I have to suffer the loss of value. Should I just accept
    > > that these things happen and thats that or should I go through the motions of trying to get some
    > > money?
    > >
    > > I called my insurance company and they say they have no part in this, it me and the owners
    > > insurance company.
    > >
    > > Anyone else have a similar situation? Jeff. Rhode Island [email protected]
    >
    > Without giving you the almost mandatory rbr insult, you should just accept the situation with the
    > same attitude you did with the road rash.
    >
    > Why?
    >
    > What if you had crashed on a wet road?

    Nah, wet roads are a standard circumstance. The legal presumption is that you should either have
    enough skill to negotiate a wet road, or you should slow down, or you should stay off the wet road.

    > Your bike still works fine.

    Sure, but the dog isn't bloody well supposed to be there! Basically, the owner is negligent because
    the dog, as it were, wasn't being operated in accordance with the law and caused a road hazard. We
    should all try not to hit dogs, but the onus is on the owner to not let their dog run free, lest
    they do something stupid (as dogs will do) like run in front of a car. You have to take
    responsibility for your property.

    > Your bike parts and clothes, if you tried to sell them on ebay or rbm would be worth a fraction of
    > $750 even before your crash.

    $750 is the opening offer.

    > Although racing implies a recognition of potential harm to your equipment, you wouldn't expect to
    > be reimbursed in that situation.

    Racing is an explicitly no-fault activity. By signing the waiver and lining up beside the other
    racers, you are consenting to the agreement that accidents are just that. Even so, if someone in the
    race did something deliberate or flagrantly negligent (say, shoved their pump in your spokes or
    pushed you bodily off the course), you probably would have the possibility of a civil claim if not
    criminal charges. A few years ago an NHL hockey player got charged with assault in Vancouver after
    he deliberately swung his stick at the head of another player on the ice.

    > BTW, if you went to the trouble to make and receive a claim against the dog's owners (who probably
    > aren't too happy with you or any riders at this point anyway), had you considered giving the
    > replaced items to the dog's owners/insurance company or are you just interested in profiting from
    > the mishap?

    It's not a case of profiting from the mishap. Like any other tort case, the plaintiff is trying to
    get the defendant to make things right, which is basically a case of compensating for damage to
    property and person.

    I can't make an argument about how the courts would find in deciding how much damage was done to all
    these parts. They might decide to pro-rate the damage, they might decide the accident was partly the
    cyclist's fault and award only a percentage of the damages, or they might decide that the owner
    ought to also cough up for pain-and-suffering damages.

    The moral of the story--and I say this as a great friend of man's best friend--is that you have to
    keep your dog under control. If you can't uphold this as a moral responsibility, then you will find
    it may become a financial responsibility.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
  5. "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    Ryan,

    I am somewhat disappointed that our views are in opposition as I find your posts to be among the
    ones that are well thought out.

    The issue, as I see it, is that this guy wants someone to pay for the _cosmetic_ damage to his
    clothes and bike. If he were injured and had required medical attention or had a part damaged to the
    point where it required replacement (and I don't mean a broken spoke, either), I would say there is
    merit in pursuing recompense.

    > > What if you had crashed on a wet road?
    >
    > Nah, wet roads are a standard circumstance. The legal presumption is that you should either
    > have enough skill to negotiate a wet road, or you should slow down, or you should stay off the
    > wet road.
    >

    Since there is no licensing required to show proficiency or judgement whilst riding a bike, I'm not
    sure what legal presumption that would fall under, especially for children. The point is, if you
    crash on a wet road and scrape a few parts, you live with it.

    > > Your bike still works fine.
    >
    > Sure, but the dog isn't bloody well supposed to be there! Basically, the owner is negligent
    > because the dog, as it were, wasn't being operated in accordance with the law and caused a road
    > hazard. We should all try not to hit dogs, but the onus is on the owner to not let their dog run
    > free, lest they do something stupid (as dogs will do) like run in front of a car. You have to take
    > responsibility for your property.

    I agree, I just think given the (lack of) severity of the damage, he should be of the same viewpoint
    about his equipment as his road rash.

    > > Your bike parts and clothes, if you tried to sell them on ebay or rbm
    would
    > > be worth a fraction of $750 even before your crash.
    >
    > $750 is the opening offer.

    Meaning what?

    > > Although racing implies a recognition of potential harm to your
    equipment,
    > > you wouldn't expect to be reimbursed in that situation.
    >
    > Racing is an explicitly no-fault activity. By signing the waiver and lining up beside the other
    > racers, you are consenting to the agreement that accidents are just that. Even so, if someone in
    > the race did something deliberate or flagrantly negligent (say, shoved their pump in your spokes
    > or pushed you bodily off the course), you probably would have the possibility of a civil claim if
    > not criminal charges. A few years ago an NHL hockey player got charged with assault in Vancouver
    > after he deliberately swung his stick at the head of another player on the ice.

    Something like that could mean the end of the sport as we know it. I'm sure you could imagine that
    the plaintiff's attorney would name not only the 'attacking' rider, but also the race organizer,
    officials, and race sponsors as defendants. It's all in the name of obtaining a larger award.

    > > BTW, if you went to the trouble to make and receive a claim against the dog's owners (who
    > > probably aren't too happy with you or any riders at
    this
    > > point anyway), had you considered giving the replaced items to the dog's owners/insurance
    > > company or are you just interested in profiting from
    the
    > > mishap?
    >
    > It's not a case of profiting from the mishap. Like any other tort case, the plaintiff is trying to
    > get the defendant to make things right, which is basically a case of compensating for damage to
    > property and person.

    And tort cases are known for frivolity and excessive claims, thus there are many states in the US
    who are enacting tort reform for that reason.

    > I can't make an argument about how the courts would find in deciding how much damage was done to
    > all these parts. They might decide to pro-rate the damage, they might decide the accident was
    > partly the cyclist's fault and award only a percentage of the damages, or they might decide that
    > the owner ought to also cough up for pain-and-suffering damages.

    Not to mention determining the value (depreciation) of the original parts, damage notwithstanding.
    Considering the relationship between bikes and cars, a jury might not award much at all. We can only
    speculate, given the information at hand. We don't even know if the dog was regularly loose and was
    an expected hazard or if the rider was taunting the dog (not that it makes it right, but it wouldn't
    make a jury very sympathetic to the rider).

    > The moral of the story--and I say this as a great friend of man's best friend--is that you have to
    > keep your dog under control. If you can't uphold this as a moral responsibility, then you will
    > find it may become a financial responsibility.

    As I said before, I agree with you. But remember, we're talking about "parts that were scraped up as
    a result of the accident, derailer, skewer, pedals, seat, tape, jersy and shorts". How many of us
    own bikes where the derailleur, skewers, and pedals are free of scrapes?
     
  6. Max Watt

    Max Watt Guest

    [email protected] (Jeff) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > While on a solo training ride I hit a loose dog in a town with a leash law. I went down and got
    > some road rash, no big deal. My bike got a little scrapped up and that bothers me. I filed a
    > report witht he town and the dogs ownwer was issued a fine.
    >
    > I am considering mailing the dogs ownwer a bill for the cost of replacement parts that were
    > scraped up as a result of the accident, derailer, skewer, pedals, seat, tape, jersy and shorts.
    > Alll in all it totals $750.
    >
    > My bike still works fine but why should I have to suffer the loss of value. Should I just
    > accept that these things happen and thats that or should I go through the motions of trying to
    > get some money?
    >
    > I called my insurance company and they say they have no part in this, it me and the owners
    > insurance company.
    >
    > Anyone else have a similar situation? Jeff. Rhode Island [email protected]

    Try small claims court given the sum involved document the costs involved to fix the bike< estimate
    from your bike shop repair bills etc
     
  7. Jeff Jones

    Jeff Jones Guest

  8. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    Carl, you are truly enlightened.

    "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > While on a solo training ride I hit a loose dog in a town with a
    leash
    > > law. I went down and got some road rash, no big deal. My bike got
    a
    > > little scrapped up and that bothers me. I filed a report witht he
    town
    > > and the dogs ownwer was issued a fine.
    > >
    > > I am considering mailing the dogs ownwer a bill for the cost of replacement parts that were
    > > scraped up as a result of the
    accident,
    > > derailer, skewer, pedals, seat, tape, jersy and shorts. Alll in
    all it
    > > totals $750.
    > >
    > > My bike still works fine but why should I have to suffer the loss
    of
    > > value. Should I just accept that these things happen and thats
    that or
    > > should I go through the motions of trying to get some money?
    > >
    > > I called my insurance company and they say they have no part in
    this,
    > > it me and the owners insurance company.
    > >
    > > Anyone else have a similar situation? Jeff. Rhode Island [email protected]
    >
    > Without giving you the almost mandatory rbr insult, you should just
    accept
    > the situation with the same attitude you did with the road rash.
    >
    > Why?
    >
    > What if you had crashed on a wet road?
    >
    > Your bike still works fine.
    >
    > Your bike parts and clothes, if you tried to sell them on ebay or
    rbm would
    > be worth a fraction of $750 even before your crash.
    >
    > Although racing implies a recognition of potential harm to your
    equipment,
    > you wouldn't expect to be reimbursed in that situation.
    >
    > BTW, if you went to the trouble to make and receive a claim against
    the
    > dog's owners (who probably aren't too happy with you or any riders
    at this
    > point anyway), had you considered giving the replaced items to the
    dog's
    > owners/insurance company or are you just interested in profiting
    from the
    > mishap?
    >
     
  9. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Sure, but the dog isn't bloody well supposed to be there! Basically,
    the
    > owner is negligent because the dog, as it were, wasn't being
    operated in
    > accordance with the law and caused a road hazard. We should all try
    not
    > to hit dogs, but the onus is on the owner to not let their dog run
    free,
    > lest they do something stupid (as dogs will do) like run in front of
    a
    > car. You have to take responsibility for your property.

    What if it had been a coyote? Around here there are coyotes as big as large German Shepards (You
    know, those guys named Dieter with a hand the size of a dinner plate?) You are expected to be alert
    enough to miss pedestrians and dogs as well. Bad luck that Jeff fell but it wasn't a vehicle
    operated by another human and so he should have been able to avoid it.

    And as Carl pointed out - the actual value of the components on the bike were a scant fraction of
    what they cost new.

    This is what is known as an act of God.
     
  10. Kevin G.

    Kevin G. Guest

    You are in no way at fault for what happened between you and the dog. At a very minimum the dog
    owners should be happy to pay you for your bicycle repairs and hope you go quietly from there. I hit
    a dog in June of '03 and crashed hard. The damages to my bike were just over $1000. I've got decent
    health insurance but there were still many out of pocket expenses such as copays and numerous trips
    for medical reasons afterward.

    The dog owners wanted to accept no responsibility for what happened to
    me. I would have been happy at the time to recover half of my expenses but they wouldn't have
    any of it.

    I filed suite in our county but the owners told me even if they lost they still weren't going to
    pay. You can win in court but trying to collect your damages is a whole other matter. As the court
    date approached I got a certified letter from the Judge Judy show wanting to know if we would be
    interested in trying our case on their show...the rest is history. Here are some videos from our
    case and the outcome...

    http://www.kevinandtammy.net/Judge%20Judy.htm

    Good luck, Kevin g
     
  11. "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message...
    > While on a solo training ride I hit a loose dog in a town with a leash law. > Anyone else have a
    > similar situation? Jeff. Rhode Island

    Jeff, Buddy Cianci too busy to recommend a lawyer for you?

    Nut up, bub.

    Chris Mitchell -Agrees with Carl
     
  12. Tim Mullin

    Tim Mullin Guest

    "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Nah, wet roads are a standard circumstance. The legal presumption is that you should either
    > have enough skill to negotiate a wet road, or you should slow down, or you should stay off the
    > wet road.

    And animals running out into the road are not? The fact that the town has a leash law does not mean
    you don't have to be alert small animals running out in front of you. I regularly encounter cats,
    rats, possum, groundhogs, beaver, and deer on my rides, as well as the occasional dog. Small animals
    running out in front of you ARE a standard circumstance. It's the sort of thing that happens when
    you ride a bike. The dude said his bike works fine, and his road rash was, "no big deal." He needs
    to shine it on. Shit happens....
     
  13. In article <[email protected]>, "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > Ryan,
    >
    > I am somewhat disappointed that our views are in opposition as I find your posts to be among the
    > ones that are well thought out.

    I too, am disappointed. I have decided to devote some of my valuable time to correcting your views,
    in order that joy and harmony may reign once again. :)

    Note that most of my comments below reflect (as best as I can) the legal issues. I'll have a little
    note later on what I think the moral issues are, which seems to me what your greatest concern is
    with this case.

    > The issue, as I see it, is that this guy wants someone to pay for the _cosmetic_ damage to his
    > clothes and bike. If he were injured and had required medical attention or had a part damaged to
    > the point where it required replacement (and I don't mean a broken spoke, either), I would say
    > there is merit in pursuing recompense.

    Well, cosmetic damage is damage. it lowers resale, and in the case of clothing, almost certainly
    reduces the usable life of the garment. The point is there are real financial losses being suffered,
    or to put it another way, an outside factor in the control of another person caused damage to his
    person and property.

    > > > What if you had crashed on a wet road?
    > >
    > > Nah, wet roads are a standard circumstance. The legal presumption is that you should either
    > > have enough skill to negotiate a wet road, or you should slow down, or you should stay off the
    > > wet road.
    >
    > Since there is no licensing required to show proficiency or judgement whilst riding a bike, I'm
    > not sure what legal presumption that would fall under, especially for children. The point is, if
    > you crash on a wet road and scrape a few parts, you live with it.

    It's implicit in using the road. That is, by using a road, you assume responsibility for using it
    properly. The nature of roads is that, by acts of God, they covered with rain and even snow. You
    have to, as a person using the road, decide whether it's safe to use it on your chosen vehicles.
    There are times when it is not safe to take most vehicles out on the roads.

    > > > Your bike still works fine.
    > >
    > > Sure, but the dog isn't bloody well supposed to be there! Basically, the owner is negligent
    > > because the dog, as it were, wasn't being operated in accordance with the law and caused a road
    > > hazard. We should all try not to hit dogs, but the onus is on the owner to not let their dog run
    > > free, lest they do something stupid (as dogs will do) like run in front of a car. You have to
    > > take responsibility for your property.
    >
    > I agree, I just think given the (lack of) severity of the damage, he should be of the same
    > viewpoint about his equipment as his road rash.
    >
    > > > Your bike parts and clothes, if you tried to sell them on ebay or rbm
    > would
    > > > be worth a fraction of $750 even before your crash.
    > >
    > > $750 is the opening offer.
    >
    > Meaning what?

    Meaning that that's the amount it would cost to make things right, or to get him back to where he
    was before someone neglected to tie up their dog. If the dog owner wants to settle things simply, a
    lesser amount might suffice. But the complete damages probably do amount to something like that
    amount, strictly speaking.

    > > > Although racing implies a recognition of potential harm to your
    > equipment,
    > > > you wouldn't expect to be reimbursed in that situation.
    > >
    > > Racing is an explicitly no-fault activity. By signing the waiver and lining up beside the other
    > > racers, you are consenting to the agreement that accidents are just that. Even so, if someone in
    > > the race did something deliberate or flagrantly negligent (say, shoved their pump in your spokes
    > > or pushed you bodily off the course), you probably would have the possibility of a civil claim
    > > if not criminal charges. A few years ago an NHL hockey player got charged with assault in
    > > Vancouver after he deliberately swung his stick at the head of another player on the ice.
    >
    > Something like that could mean the end of the sport as we know it. I'm sure you could imagine that
    > the plaintiff's attorney would name not only the 'attacking' rider, but also the race organizer,
    > officials, and race sponsors as defendants. It's all in the name of obtaining a larger award.

    No, because the normal activities of a bike race (or a hockey game, or a boxing match) are not
    covered. If two boxers engage in a sanctioned boxing match, and one badly injures the other, well,
    that's a normal part of the event. In bicycle racing, if someone crashes, and they take you down,
    and your wheel bends (as happened to another rider in my Thursday night beer-league mountain bike
    race) well, that's racing. But hey, he got the crash prize. And in hockey, if one player drills
    another player with a hard but clean bodycheck, and the other player staggers off the ice, injured,
    that's part of the game.

    But these are all sporting events. Riding on the road in normal circumstances is not a sporting
    event, and even if it was, being attacked by the neighbour's dog is not part of normal driving
    conditions.

    > > > BTW, if you went to the trouble to make and receive a claim against the dog's owners (who
    > > > probably aren't too happy with you or any riders at
    > this
    > > > point anyway), had you considered giving the replaced items to the dog's owners/insurance
    > > > company or are you just interested in profiting from
    > the
    > > > mishap?
    > >
    > > It's not a case of profiting from the mishap. Like any other tort case, the plaintiff is trying
    > > to get the defendant to make things right, which is basically a case of compensating for damage
    > > to property and person.
    >
    > And tort cases are known for frivolity and excessive claims, thus there are many states in the US
    > who are enacting tort reform for that reason.

    I am not sure why you think this is either frivolous or excessive, except that you seem to think
    that the damage wasn't real because the parts were not damaged beyond operability. I am curious as
    to whether you take the same attitude when someone hits your car. I tend to ask them to repair the
    body panels as well as the mechanical damage.

    > > I can't make an argument about how the courts would find in deciding how much damage was done to
    > > all these parts. They might decide to pro-rate the damage, they might decide the accident was
    > > partly the cyclist's fault and award only a percentage of the damages, or they might decide that
    > > the owner ought to also cough up for pain-and-suffering damages.
    >
    > Not to mention determining the value (depreciation) of the original parts, damage notwithstanding.
    > Considering the relationship between bikes and cars, a jury might not award much at all. We can
    > only speculate, given the information at hand. We don't even know if the dog was regularly loose
    > and was an expected hazard or if the rider was taunting the dog (not that it makes it right, but
    > it wouldn't make a jury very sympathetic to the rider).

    Okay, if the dog was regularly loose, that may make it worse, especially if the owner had been
    warned before.

    > > The moral of the story--and I say this as a great friend of man's best friend--is that you have
    > > to keep your dog under control. If you can't uphold this as a moral responsibility, then you
    > > will find it may become a financial responsibility.
    >
    > As I said before, I agree with you. But remember, we're talking about "parts that were scraped up
    > as a result of the accident, derailer, skewer, pedals, seat, tape, jersy and shorts". How many of
    > us own bikes where the derailleur, skewers, and pedals are free of scrapes?

    I decided to take this Pepsi Challenge. My well-used Pinarello has a pretty worn frame, with peeling
    decals and numerous small paint chips, plus marks on one chainstay where a previous owner had a
    kickstand installed (!).

    The rear derailleur has only the tiniest of scrape marks on it. The fder is pristine except for road
    grime and chain oil. The skewers have no scratches worth noting. The pedals are scraped to hell, but
    they were used when I bought them and I beat up my previous pedals very badly indeed, thanks to my
    lazy cornering.

    Earlier in this thread, someone suggested what would have happened if it had been a wild dog,
    coyote, or a deer. Well, that would have been a case of too bad, so sad. You can't sue God, and wild
    animal attacks are acts of God (apparently, an Old Testament kinda God, in this case). But I would
    note that few wild animals will vector in on and attack cyclists. They generally regard them as
    trouble, not prey. "Tame" dogs tend to be different.

    Now, as to the question of whether or not the cyclist should sue. First, the question of
    responsibility must be settled. If you get distracted and run over a sleeping dog, well, that might
    be legally the owner's fault, but I doubt many of us could muster the gumption to sue in such a
    case. But I think none of us would have a problem with suing the owner if the dog chased and
    attacked the cyclist (a situation I once experienced on a motorcycle). If nothing else, one feels a
    certain need, as the French phrase would have it, to "encourage the others." That is, the threat and
    example of a dog owner being sued for letting their dog run free is a useful corrective for other
    owners who might otherwise be lazy about letting their dog run free. A fine is one thing, but a
    civil suit is quite another.

    But ultimately, is this cyclist wrong to sue? Well, you might argue that he's suing over
    trivialities, and with respect to damage he could have avoided. The fact is, the accident happened,
    despite the efforts of both dog owner and cyclist, neither of whom has much interest in causing such
    a situation. Given that reality, both are involved, and assessment of responsibility for the damage
    is a reasonable act.

    As for the triviality of the damage, I disagree. As I said above, damaged clothing wears faster and
    is less useful, and similarly for scraped components. None of this even considers possible resale or
    the simple aesthetic concern that before this accident, the equipment was probably not damaged.

    This is not a case of hurt feelings, or obvious negligence by the cyclist. If you get run into by an
    owned dog, that means that someone was irresponsibly letting the dog run free. The OP isn't even
    suggesting a "pain and suffering" claim, which would be well within his legal rights, but in this
    case furthe suggests he isn't claiming for anything even remotely like frivolous damage.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
  14. Tim Mullin

    Tim Mullin Guest

    "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > But these are all sporting events. Riding on the road in normal circumstances is not a sporting
    > event, and even if it was, being attacked by the neighbour's dog is not part of normal driving
    > conditions.

    So now you're saying he was "attacked"?

    > I would note that few wild animals will vector in on and attack cyclists. They generally regard
    > them as trouble, not prey. "Tame" dogs tend to be different.

    There's that attack word again. The dude said he hit a dog, not that the dog attacked him.
     
  15. "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > Well, cosmetic damage is damage. it lowers resale, and in the case of clothing, almost certainly
    > reduces the usable life of the garment. The point is there are real financial losses being
    > suffered, or to put it another way, an outside factor in the control of another person caused
    > damage to his person and property.

    In a literal sense, I see your point. But we have no indication as to the condition of the damaged
    parts prior to the crash to determine their value. Regardless, since they were in a used condition,
    their value would not be the same as brand new. If I have an accident in my car, whether it is my
    fault or someone else's, the insurance company will make repairs up to the value of the car,
    irrespective of what I paid for the car. I do not get a new car. I do not get compensation for the
    davaluation of having a repaired car. And if I have a loan on the car that exceeds the value of the
    car, I end up with no car and a debt to the loan company.

    That said, personally I view a bicycle as a tool that incurs wear and tear as part of it's function.
    OTOH, I bought a Corima road bike about 7 years ago primarily for its aesthetics, so I do recognize
    and appreciate that there are people who view a bicycle as a form of art. However, my overriding (no
    pun intended) opinion is that by the very nature of the activity of bicycle riding, scratches and
    scrapes are an inevitability, dogs or no dogs.

    > It's implicit in using the road. That is, by using a road, you assume responsibility for using it
    > properly. The nature of roads is that, by acts of God, they covered with rain and even snow. You
    > have to, as a person using the road, decide whether it's safe to use it on your chosen vehicles.
    > There are times when it is not safe to take most vehicles out on the roads.

    Convincing point.

    > > > $750 is the opening offer.
    > >
    > > Meaning what?
    >
    > Meaning that that's the amount it would cost to make things right, or to get him back to where he
    > was before someone neglected to tie up their dog. If the dog owner wants to settle things simply,
    > a lesser amount might suffice. But the complete damages probably do amount to something like that
    > amount, strictly speaking.

    I disagree, as my point above explained.

    > > > Racing is an explicitly no-fault activity. By signing the waiver and lining up beside the
    > > > other racers, you are consenting to the agreement that accidents are just that. Even so, if
    > > > someone in the race did something deliberate or flagrantly negligent (say, shoved their pump
    in
    > > > your spokes or pushed you bodily off the course), you probably would have the possibility of a
    > > > civil claim if not criminal charges. A few years ago an NHL hockey player got charged with
    > > > assault in Vancouver after he deliberately swung his stick at the head of another player on
    > > > the ice.

    Like Capirossi and Harada? Or Senna/Prost, Schumacher/Hill? This is definitely getting off on a
    tangent, but in those circumstances, I don't recall any civil or criminal actions, just possibly
    some sanctions by the FIM/FIA.

    > > Something like that could mean the end of the sport as we know it. I'm
    sure
    > > you could imagine that the plaintiff's attorney would name not only the 'attacking' rider, but
    > > also the race organizer, officials, and race
    sponsors
    > > as defendants. It's all in the name of obtaining a larger award.
    >
    > No, because the normal activities of a bike race (or a hockey game, or a boxing match) are not
    > covered. If two boxers engage in a sanctioned boxing match, and one badly injures the other, well,
    > that's a normal part of the event. In bicycle racing, if someone crashes, and they take you down,
    > and your wheel bends (as happened to another rider in my Thursday night beer-league mountain bike
    > race) well, that's racing. But hey, he got the crash prize. And in hockey, if one player drills
    > another player with a hard but clean bodycheck, and the other player staggers off the ice,
    > injured, that's part of the game.

    Again off on a tangent (seemingly requisite for rbr), but which is it? Deliberate or flagrantly
    negligent possibly warranting civil/criminal action or part of the game?

    > But these are all sporting events. Riding on the road in normal circumstances is not a sporting
    > event, and even if it was, being attacked by the neighbour's dog is not part of normal driving
    > conditions.

    The OP didn't say he was attacked. He said he hit the dog. Regardless, even though there is a leash
    law in his town, no matter where you are or what you are doing it is in your best interests to be
    aware of your surroundings. That should be part of normal driving conditions just as much as it is
    implicit in using the road with any vehicle, as you stated above. You said that "by using a road,
    you assume responsibility for using it properly" and to me that includes expecting the unexpected.
    However that statement is in no way intended to imply that there is legal fault on the part of the
    OP. I do not dispute that the dog should not have been loose and it's owner responsible.

    > > And tort cases are known for frivolity and excessive claims, thus there
    are
    > > many states in the US who are enacting tort reform for that reason.
    >
    > I am not sure why you think this is either frivolous or excessive, except that you seem to think
    > that the damage wasn't real because the parts were not damaged beyond operability. I am curious as
    > to whether you take the same attitude when someone hits your car. I tend to ask them to repair the
    > body panels as well as the mechanical damage.

    I've already given my viewpoint on this above , but as far as if this is frivolous to me depends on
    whether or not the damages parts were in showroom condition before the crash. If they were new and
    shiny, I would tend to give him a little consideration, but not much due to my feelings about normal
    wear and tear. If they were already scratched, then I do not think he should pursue compensation for
    replacement.

    > > Not to mention determining the value (depreciation) of the original
    parts,
    > > damage notwithstanding. Considering the relationship between bikes and
    cars,
    > > a jury might not award much at all. We can only speculate, given the information at hand. We
    > > don't even know if the dog was regularly loose
    and
    > > was an expected hazard or if the rider was taunting the dog (not that it makes it right, but it
    > > wouldn't make a jury very sympathetic to the
    rider).
    >
    > Okay, if the dog was regularly loose, that may make it worse, especially if the owner had been
    > warned before.

    Speculation on both our parts :)

    > > As I said before, I agree with you. But remember, we're talking about
    "parts
    > > that were scraped up as a result of the accident, derailer, skewer, pedals, seat, tape, jersy
    > > and shorts". How many of us
    own
    > > bikes where the derailleur, skewers, and pedals are free of scrapes?

    > The rear derailleur has only the tiniest of scrape marks on it. The fder is pristine except for
    > road grime and chain oil. The skewers have no scratches worth noting. The pedals are scraped to
    > hell, but they were used when I bought them and I beat up my previous pedals very badly indeed,
    > thanks to my lazy cornering.

    I think a lot of this is subjective. What may be tiny to one person may be huge to another and
    totally insignificant to yet another. This may sound like nitpicking, but if we are discussing
    cosmetic value, did you look in the inside of the derailleur cages, both front & rear? I'm sure that
    your front has scratches due to the way it functions.

    > Now, as to the question of whether or not the cyclist should sue. First, the question of
    > responsibility must be settled. If you get distracted and run over a sleeping dog, well, that
    > might be legally the owner's fault, but I doubt many of us could muster the gumption to sue in
    > such a case. But I think none of us would have a problem with suing the owner if the dog chased
    > and attacked the cyclist (a situation I once experienced on a motorcycle). If nothing else, one
    > feels a certain need, as the French phrase would have it, to "encourage the others." That is, the
    > threat and example of a dog owner being sued for letting their dog run free is a useful corrective
    > for other owners who might otherwise be lazy about letting their dog run free. A fine is one
    > thing, but a civil suit is quite another.

    I agree, but I doubt that many people could go an entire month without creating the potential for a
    civil suit, even if it were for something as trivial as not pointing out a pothole or broken glass
    on a group ride which causes someone else to get a flat or dent a rim. [Disclaimer] This example is
    not a comparasion, because no laws were broken by the riders relative to the example, but the dog
    was running loose illegally.

    > But ultimately, is this cyclist wrong to sue? Well, you might argue that he's suing over
    > trivialities, and with respect to damage he could have avoided. The fact is, the accident
    > happened, despite the efforts of both dog owner and cyclist, neither of whom has much interest in
    > causing such a situation. Given that reality, both are involved, and assessment of responsibility
    > for the damage is a reasonable act.

    Legally, I'm with you. I just fell that given the extent of the damages, he should let bygones
    be bygones.

    > As for the triviality of the damage, I disagree. As I said above, damaged clothing wears faster
    > and is less useful, and similarly for scraped components.

    Clothing, possibly yes depending on the damage (although I still wear on occasion a jersey from 10
    years ago at worlds when I got rammed from behind by a Scandinavian kilo rider and slid on my back
    when I was rolling around on the apron of the track. The jersey had the sublimating rubbed off and
    it pills up in the area, but still wears well).

    Unless bearing surfaces were scraped, I can't see anything less than deep gouges causing a part to
    wear faster. Think of the deep scratches that are put into handlebars by nonround brake clamps, yet
    I've never heard of a handlebar failure due to the stress risers created by the scratches. If it's
    bent, then it's bent and it needs to be replaced, but the OP didn't even say the derailleur hanger
    needed realignment.

    > None of this even considers possible resale or the simple aesthetic concern that before this
    > accident, the equipment was probably not damaged.

    Information which would certainly help in determining the merit of efforts to recover for damages.

    > This is not a case of hurt feelings, or obvious negligence by the cyclist. If you get run into by
    > an owned dog, that means that someone was irresponsibly letting the dog run free. The OP isn't
    > even suggesting a "pain and suffering" claim, which would be well within his legal rights, but in
    > this case furthe suggests he isn't claiming for anything even remotely like frivolous damage.

    Once again, legally you are correct as far as I know. But once again, I think that if every
    potential civil suit was filed, few people could manage to escape being hit with a dozen per year.
    To a point, I think it is part of decent society to realize that there are times when you've got
    to roll with the punches and you shouldn't feel the need to make a beeline to the courthouse every
    time an injustice has been done to you. Yes, I realize that is a moral issue, but what are our
    laws based on?
     
  16. "Kevin G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > You are in no way at fault for what happened between you and the dog. At a very minimum the dog
    > owners should be happy to pay you for your bicycle repairs and hope you go quietly from there. I
    > hit a dog in June of '03 and crashed hard. The damages to my bike were just over $1000. I've got
    > decent health insurance but there were still many out of pocket expenses such as copays and
    > numerous trips for medical reasons afterward.
    >

    Other than the both of you hitting dogs while riding bikes, with the information given I don't see
    many similarities between the cases.

    The male defendant in your case was an absolute moron though, and his wife too, to a lesser degree.
    And I can't say much about Judge Judy, either.
     
  17. [email protected] (Jeff) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Anyone else have a similar situation? Jeff.

    A friend of mine had the same deal in MD in a county w/ leash law. The dog owners had to pay for the
    bike + hospital bills, but I don't think anything happened in court. The dog owner's homeowner's
    insurance company paid up, without too much hassle if I remember correctly.
     
  18. Suz

    Suz Guest

    So you never told us what happened with the dog. Was it injured? If so, it's time you grew a heart
    and have the decency to apologize to the dog owners for being a dumbass and hitting their dog. I
    don't see where you said anything about it viciously attacking you. You sound like you are very
    egotistical to believe that you should be reimbursed every penny of value for some parts that don't
    even require replacing. So what if they have some scratches Have you never had anything unfortunate
    happen to you? Legalities aside, just because you maybe COULD get some money out of the poor,
    grieving dog owners (if dog was injured or killed) doesn't mean you should.

    What if you were out on a training ride and a friend hit a pot-hole, ran into you, and took you
    down. Would you sue him/ her, or maybe the person in front of him that didn't point it out, etc.
    This is a similar situation. It was unintentional, no one was seriously injured. I would file it
    under the "shit happens" category.

    The case may be different if the dog was vicious, or the owners were chronically negligent.

    Have you ever had a dog? If so, you should know that sometimes, despite your best efforts and
    intentions, the dog escapes a fenced yard, slips out an unclosed door, disobeys his electronic
    fence, whatever. I am an extremely responsible and conscientious dog owner, yet my dogs have escaped
    the yard on occasion. Once was because the power was out, rendering the electronic fence
    non-functional, technically an "act of god" or whatever. Luckily, there were just nice neighbors to
    let me know about it, instead of some biker who thinks the world owes him something.

    I think you should get over yourself.

    -suz

    "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > While on a solo training ride I hit a loose dog in a town with a leash law. I went down and got
    > some road rash, no big deal. My bike got a little scrapped up and that bothers me. I filed a
    > report witht he town and the dogs ownwer was issued a fine.
    >
    > I am considering mailing the dogs ownwer a bill for the cost of replacement parts that were
    > scraped up as a result of the accident, derailer, skewer, pedals, seat, tape, jersy and shorts.
    > Alll in all it totals $750.
    >
    > My bike still works fine but why should I have to suffer the loss of value. Should I just
    > accept that these things happen and thats that or should I go through the motions of trying to
    > get some money?
    >
    > I called my insurance company and they say they have no part in this, it me and the owners
    > insurance company.
    >
    > Anyone else have a similar situation? Jeff. Rhode Island [email protected]
     
  19. suz-<< What if you were out on a training ride and a friend hit a pot-hole, ran into you, and took
    you down. Would you sue him/ her.

    No law was broken with the pothole..dogs should be on leashes if there is a law for this,
    this one wasn't. The owner was negligent and is responsible for putting the guy's bike back
    into the condition it was in before the mishap.


    Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
    (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
     
  20. "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:200304280817[email protected]...
    > suz-<< What if you were out on a training ride and a friend hit a
    pot-hole, ran
    > into you, and took you down. Would you sue him/ her.
    >
    > No law was broken with the pothole..dogs should be on leashes if there is
    a
    > law for this, this one wasn't. The owner was negligent and is responsible
    for
    > putting the guy's bike back into the condition it was in before the
    mishap.
    >

    Legally there is consideration whether the owners were careless in allowing their dog to be loose or
    if it was, as Suz gave as an example, a situation where the dog running loose was an aberration.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...