Claim against dog owner

[Kyle Legate]

Suz wrote:
>
> 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. >
>
He sounds like the kind of guy who would sue the city for putting a pothole in the middle
of the road.

I agree with the majority of people here...suck it up.

 

[Sprintatbettyru]

"Suz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> 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 "**** 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

I suppose you think a bike rider should clean up your dog's **** too?

Dog owners need to take responsibility for the damage the dogs do to others once they are off the
owner's property. Whether it was an accident or not...does that matter?. This time it was a dog
taking out a bike rider...so what, a bike rider. But the next time it could be canine jaws punturing
the jugular of a toddler (I know it's an extreme scenario and hopefully it doesn't happen again for
a long time).

If you are a dog owner...you should be a responsible one and be accountable. I've had dogs my whole
life until a few years ago (because I knew I wouldn't be around enough to give my pet an enjoyable
life)...if my dog took out a rider, or simply knocked over a little girl fracturing her wrist (she
should drink more milk)...of I would stand up and do the right think and help out any way I can.

But most of these accidents are not from the occasional dog that got loose, but from the dogs
that run free.

I've lost count of the dogs come chasing after me only to hear a short yelp as a car coming from the
opposite direction smacks the dumb canine(though no fault of his own...he's just being a dog). I
know I can outpsrint all of the dogs on my routes (except one)...but it pisses me off that owners
endanger their dogs like this every day. If the dog owner in Jeff's case falls in the irresponsible
dog owner category...he should go at the dog owner with everything he has. Just to send a message
that they need to treat their next dog better.

 

[Michael McMurra]

Suz, Remain calm. The poor guy just asked a question of the group, possibly seeking a moral, as well
as legal concensus. While I empathize with your concluding paragraph, and the opinion on sucking it
up, your initial paragraph is a bit overboard. "Legalities aside, just because you maybe COULD get
some money... doesn't mean you should." is the whole point of his post. No need to **** the guy.
Carl and Ryan: enjoyable discussion. Mike

"Suz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.
> >>>>Major Snip (sorry dog owners...)<<<<<

 

[Kevin G]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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.

Legally there isn't any consideration as to whether the dog owners were simply careless or if they
really had good intentions. The dog owners didn't restrain their dog. End of story. I'm sure court
rooms across the country are full of defendants with good intentions but that doesn't do anything
for the person who is on the short end of a bad outcome.

In my case I'm lucky to be alive to tell about it. The fact that they had good intentions to keep
their dog tied up, which they didn't, wasn't a whold lot of good to me as I lay in the ambulance.
Fortunately for me when I took my header I fell to my right and ended up in a ditch after hitting
the pavement. I could just have easily been thrown to the left and into traffic which was
traveling at 55mph.

Just because my experience was worse than Jeff's doesn't mean that in his case the dog's owners
should somehow not be held responsible for failure to control their dog. I'd present them with a
bill to bring my bike back to the condition it was in before the collision. Give them the replaced
parts and they can do whatever they like with them. They should be more than happy if that's all
you're asking for.

Kevin Gilmore

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Kevin G" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > 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.
>
> Legally there isn't any consideration as to whether the dog owners were simply careless or if they
> really had good intentions. The dog owners didn't restrain their dog. End of story. I'm sure court
> rooms across the country are full of defendants with good intentions but that doesn't do anything
> for the person who is on the short end of a bad outcome.
>
> In my case I'm lucky to be alive to tell about it. The fact that they had good intentions to keep
> their dog tied up, which they didn't, wasn't a
whold
> lot of good to me as I lay in the ambulance. Fortunately for me when I
took
> my header I fell to my right and ended up in a ditch after hitting the pavement. I could just have
> easily been thrown to the left and into
traffic
> which was traveling at 55mph.
>
> Just because my experience was worse than Jeff's doesn't mean that in his case the dog's owners
> should somehow not be held responsible for failure
to
> control their dog. I'd present them with a bill to bring my bike back to the condition it was in
> before the collision. Give them the replaced
parts
> and they can do whatever they like with them. They should be more than happy if that's all you're
> asking for.
>

It sounds as if you still have issues regarding your accident.

If, as you say, "They should be more than happy if that's all you're asking for.", then it sounds as
if you are referring to punitive damages. As I said before, we don't know the circumstances
regarding the dog being loose. *If* it escaped despite reasonable efforts to keep it restrained,
then why should there be punitive damages? This is what I was referring to about tort reform in my
post to Ryan. If the OP is just trying to get his bike back to where it was before the crash, than
this does not apply (although I still stand by my opinion to let it go).

BTW, I do understand that some accidents are unavoidable, despite best intentions and diligence. I
do not mean to imply that the OP was careless in watching out for loose dogs because based on his
post; we simply do not know.

 

[Suz]

> >
> > 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
>
>
> I suppose you think a bike rider should clean up your dog's **** too?
>
You missed the line about being a *responsible* dog owner. Of course I clean up my dog's ****, if
you must know.

> Dog owners need to take responsibility for the damage the dogs do to others once they are off the
> owner's property. Whether it was an accident or not...does that matter?. This time it was a dog
> taking out a bike rider...so what, a bike rider.

Do you think I am not a cyclist? We still don't even know who was at fault, if the rider wasn't
paying attention, or if the dog came out of nowhere.

But the next time it could
> be canine jaws punturing the jugular of a toddler

This obviously would not fall under the category of accident.

>if my dog took out a rider, or simply knocked over a little girl fracturing her wrist (she should
>drink more milk)...of I would stand up and do the right think and help out any way I can.

I would too, and in fact have (when my dog killed the neighbor's chicken , even though the chicken
was loose.) But again, we are talking about a guy who suffered NO SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE and seems to
want to get whatever he can.
>
> But most of these accidents are not from the occasional dog that got loose, but from the dogs that
> run free.

Again, we have no details, but that scenario was already covered.

> pisses me off that owners endanger their dogs like this every day. If the dog owner in Jeff's case
> falls in the irresponsible dog owner category...he should go at the dog owner with everything he
> has. Just to send a message that they need to treat their next dog better.

You & I are in agreement here. I can't imagine letting my guys roam the streets, constantly in
danger like that. Actually, I might, as a dog owner, offer to pay for the stuff that needed to be
replaced, but as a cyclist, probably wouldn't ask, especially if the owners were normally
responsible types.

-Suz

p.s., So is this Jeff dude ever going to give us the details?

 

[Suz]

Yeah, I was really tired after a long stage race weekend But he asked the question "My bike works
fine, but why should I suffer a loss of value?", wanting perfectly good parts replaced. Maybe I was
hard on him, but wanted to show him the other side of the coin.

suz

"Michael McMurray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Suz, Remain calm. The poor guy just asked a question of the group, possibly seeking a moral, as
> well as legal concensus. While I empathize with your concluding paragraph, and the opinion on
> sucking it up, your initial paragraph is a bit overboard. "Legalities aside, just because you
> maybe COULD get some money... doesn't mean you should." is the whole point of his post. No need to
> **** the guy. Carl and Ryan: enjoyable discussion. Mike
>
>
> "Suz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > 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.
> > >>>>Major Snip (sorry dog owners...)<<<<<

 

[One Of The Six]

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

>
> I would too, and in fact have (when my dog killed the neighbor's chicken
,
> even though the chicken was loose.)

Do they have chicken leash laws where you live?

 

[Suz]

"one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Suz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > I would too, and in fact have (when my dog killed the neighbor's chicken
> ,
> > even though the chicken was loose.)
>
> Do they have chicken leash laws where you live?
>
Actually, we are in a suburban (formerly rural) community, and they are really not supposed to have
chickens at all, but the chicken police tend to let it slide ;-)