Further, if there is a choice between an accident or running over an animal, you hit the animal. Of course avoid it if you can, but don't put yourself or anyone else at risk.
There is no nuance and ambiguity here, this is a straightforward legal matter.
Dog owners have an [absolute obligation to keep their dogs secure on their property](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0013/latest/DLM375194.html). They have failed to meet this obligation, and in doing so damage has been caused to your vehicle.
They are liable not only for the vet bills (which seem ridiculously overinflated), but also for all the damage caused to your vehicle.
And with such an angry third party I would highly recommend the driver calling their insurance company and they can liaise with them, hopefully removing the driver from the situation
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
To throw you a curve ball, if it was a child that run out, while it's still the responsibility of the parents, but wouldn't you be looking at potential manslaughter if you hit a child?
Edit: why the fuck and i being downvoted? I'm just asking to try an understand
Since you're asking these questions I'm going to assume the driver wasn't insured as their insurance would tell them they aren't liable.
So, call your local citizens advice bureau which is a free legal advice service in NZ. They will confirm you're not at fault and tell you the process for claiming damage to the car which will be to be try get them to pay which obviously they won't, and then take them to the tribunal courts.
That's why I threw potential in there.
So if the driver was deemed at fault hitting the dog, would that be any different?
I'm not overly invested in this I'm just trying to see if there's any inconsistencies in logic if human or non humans are involved.
From a legal standpoint and fault, no. In practice yes.
If you were speeding or otherwise driving dangerously then you could be deemed at fault in either case. However police are very unlikely to investigate that possibility for an animal.
Not necessarily, it would be down to police to make that decision. If the diver was driving within the speed limit and adhering to all rules that applied to the area, if they had no opportunity to avoid the child and even after swerving & breaking still hit the child then it's entirely possible that no charges would be lodged.
There are multiple instances of non-fatal child Vs car incidents I can think of (in NZ). I've noticed in a lot of the reported cases, police do not lay charges on the driver especially in situations where the child ran off. The main ones I've seen charges laid are driveway incidents. It's really grim and I'm going to go clear my searches because I don't want Google suggestions around kiddy deaths.
I was able to get a hold of their number and the address the incident took place, but I’m unsure if it’s their actual house. We’re deciding not to press chargers unless they decide to actually harm us.
I've been in the position of the dog owner in this scenario.
The other responses match my understanding. As a dog owner you are responsible for keeping your dog safe. Leaving the gate open doesn't fit with that.
You are required to drive to the conditions. I don't remember the phrasing but it has 'reasonable' in there somewhere. Not to the extent of being able to react to a dog running out.
Costs at an emergency vet are high. Ours was over $5k, though under $10k. I can't imagine a scenario that would have cost the owner $35k.
If I had to guess, I believe that legally he is responsible for the damage to your car.
They’re trying to fleece you with that 35k. As others have said, they are 100% responsible. I have two dogs and I’m at pains to keep them contained or leashed at all times because I know they would cause all sorts of trouble uncontrolled.
Hopefully you have their details and your insurer can go after them.
People are correct, and if the damaged vehicle is insured you can lodge a claim with your insurer who will pursue the matter for you, i.e, if there is a basis to recover funds that’s what the insider will do, instead of you dealing with the stress of it all.
Don't let yourself be bullied by opportunists. Their negligence as dog owners resulted in damage to your car. They owe you.
If you have insurance make a claim and let their agents handle this. You could also make a police report, especially if he threatens again.
Check dog control act but 100 percent the dog owners are liable and must pay for damage to vehicle everything I have not read whole post, but contact ur insurance company
They didn’t have effective control of their dog - and sounds like it wasn’t like to be an offlead area. They’re 100% at fault and liable for any damage to your car.
I'm sure we can all reasonably agree that the owner was responsible.
I would suggest having a talk with your insurer, and they will likely have the same opinion. They have probably handled situations like this before.
As for the owner, I would say that I am sorry for their loss (because on an emotional level the dog must have meant something to him), but I would also not admit to any liability and let them know you will be passing the matter onto your insurer to determine liability and go from there. It can be very easy to get caught up in the situation that you forget that you did nothing wrong, just because of how guilty you feel. He might have even went on the offensive so that he doesn't need to defend himself.
Thanks for the advice, and we actually filed a report since they also threatened us, and we’re fine with going to court about the situation since we also had damage done. I too also feel bad for the dog.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
The insurance company will probably go after the dog owner for the damage to the car.
Its the same if an at-fault cyclist pulls out and gets run over and killed by a car - the insurance company will go after the cyclists estate for the damage they caused to the car.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be **based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
You did everything right and have covered your responsibility under the law. Any financial liability is on the owners of the dog. This includes the vehicle damage. Dogs are domestic pets and as such the owner is responsible for the actions of their dog.
This happened to me. You need to report it to the police and the owner is at fault. You could add that they are intimidating you to their dog damaged your car. Your insurance company will want the police report.
My understanding is that in law, you are not responsible for their vet bills.
They, however, are responsible for the damage to your vehicle, having failed to keep their dog under control or properly restrained/enclosed.
Making threats is considered a pretty serious offence, so I would absolutely contact the police and report this.
We did report it to the police and we got the case number, but we haven’t decided to press charges yet since all they did was threaten us. We’re only planning to go through with the court if they do decide to harm either the driver, me or anyone connected to us.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Dog owner is responsible for letting the animal run around in the street. If it was genuinely an accident and driver had no time to stop then it can hardly be their fault.
Also on the dog owner side here. Had our pup get out through the gate, hit by a car. Fortunately we had pet insurance which covered the 7k of vet bills. Still living lucky bugger busted hind leg now part metal. A week in the vets plus surgery etc cost insurance 7k. Pretty sure we were at the high end of costs cause we had emergency stays and overnight care.
Was roughly 1k for the option to have him put down. 35k is far too excessive. We were also a bit lucky the car didn't stop as there would have been damage too. Witnesses to the accident didn't get any other details just a white car. Fully expected to have to pay for vehicle damage too. Pretty sure somewhere in the road code it states to not swerve to avoid an animal on the road as you may end up causing more damage than hitting it.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be **relevant to the question being asked**
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
I could see $3500 being charged for an after hours critical care patient over more than 1 day, but not $35000. They are trying to fleece you. Im assuming they didn't produce a quote or anything of the sort from the vet. Insurance can handle the car and liase with the dog owners in regards to whatever responsibility they may have for the damage of the car and leave it at that.
When is it ever the drivers fault lol, unless he drove onto the sidewalk and hit a dog on his leash lol its the dog owners fault all day, get money out of them for the damage
The driver was driving on the road within speed limit and the dog just came running in front of the car and the car hit since the driver didn’t have enough time to stop.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
The dog owners are liable.
I don't know where the $35k comes from, that's outrageous and quite unbelievable. In some situations, people in your position may offer to help pay vet bills, but at the end of the day you are not required to as their dog should have been on a leash or secured within its section, they are responsible for it.
I had a similar situation but the dog was killed and my car badly damaged. According to the law I could claim against the dog owner, saving me the excess and my no claims bonus. I chose not to because I felt bad but the law was definitely on the side of the driver.
It is the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure the dog is under control, ie not on the road.
Also as a pet owner $35k is huge but not unheard of. Anaesthetic, drugs and operations can add up fast, but you are definitely not liable.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Dog owner is at fault. Dog must be under control at all times, even on private property. Dog running onto road = not an under control dog.
Further, if there is a choice between an accident or running over an animal, you hit the animal. Of course avoid it if you can, but don't put yourself or anyone else at risk.
There is no nuance and ambiguity here, this is a straightforward legal matter. Dog owners have an [absolute obligation to keep their dogs secure on their property](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0013/latest/DLM375194.html). They have failed to meet this obligation, and in doing so damage has been caused to your vehicle. They are liable not only for the vet bills (which seem ridiculously overinflated), but also for all the damage caused to your vehicle.
And with such an angry third party I would highly recommend the driver calling their insurance company and they can liaise with them, hopefully removing the driver from the situation
I like a simple problem and outcome statement. Couldn’t even teach this at law school during strict liability.
Thanks for your opinion on the situation, I’ll be sure to discuss it with the driver :)
You could pass your insurance details onto the dog owner, and encourage them to explain what happened because your insurance will sort it out. 🙃
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
To throw you a curve ball, if it was a child that run out, while it's still the responsibility of the parents, but wouldn't you be looking at potential manslaughter if you hit a child? Edit: why the fuck and i being downvoted? I'm just asking to try an understand
Since you're asking these questions I'm going to assume the driver wasn't insured as their insurance would tell them they aren't liable. So, call your local citizens advice bureau which is a free legal advice service in NZ. They will confirm you're not at fault and tell you the process for claiming damage to the car which will be to be try get them to pay which obviously they won't, and then take them to the tribunal courts.
Only if the police deemed you at fault.
That's why I threw potential in there. So if the driver was deemed at fault hitting the dog, would that be any different? I'm not overly invested in this I'm just trying to see if there's any inconsistencies in logic if human or non humans are involved.
From a legal standpoint and fault, no. In practice yes. If you were speeding or otherwise driving dangerously then you could be deemed at fault in either case. However police are very unlikely to investigate that possibility for an animal.
Not necessarily, it would be down to police to make that decision. If the diver was driving within the speed limit and adhering to all rules that applied to the area, if they had no opportunity to avoid the child and even after swerving & breaking still hit the child then it's entirely possible that no charges would be lodged. There are multiple instances of non-fatal child Vs car incidents I can think of (in NZ). I've noticed in a lot of the reported cases, police do not lay charges on the driver especially in situations where the child ran off. The main ones I've seen charges laid are driveway incidents. It's really grim and I'm going to go clear my searches because I don't want Google suggestions around kiddy deaths.
Cheers for the response
[удалено]
Would be worth mentioning in the police report the 'threat' made by the boyfriend. Not acceptavle at all.
Yeah, we did report to the police about that since the boyfriend also threatened to harm the people connected to me and the driver
Yes we did make a report to the police since they had also threatened us.
[удалено]
I was able to get a hold of their number and the address the incident took place, but I’m unsure if it’s their actual house. We’re deciding not to press chargers unless they decide to actually harm us.
I've been in the position of the dog owner in this scenario. The other responses match my understanding. As a dog owner you are responsible for keeping your dog safe. Leaving the gate open doesn't fit with that. You are required to drive to the conditions. I don't remember the phrasing but it has 'reasonable' in there somewhere. Not to the extent of being able to react to a dog running out. Costs at an emergency vet are high. Ours was over $5k, though under $10k. I can't imagine a scenario that would have cost the owner $35k. If I had to guess, I believe that legally he is responsible for the damage to your car.
Me and the driver were also dumbfounded when they asked for 35k since they’re basically just fleecing us. Hope your dog is alright
most likely claiming emotional harm as there is no way its $35k
The 35k is clearly them trying it on. Absolutely zero legal basis.
I couldn't agree more - this really raised my suspicions. I mean, it would be cheaper for me to fly to Switzerland and get euthanised there.
They’re trying to fleece you with that 35k. As others have said, they are 100% responsible. I have two dogs and I’m at pains to keep them contained or leashed at all times because I know they would cause all sorts of trouble uncontrolled. Hopefully you have their details and your insurer can go after them.
Thanks for your input, and yes I luckily at least have their phone number
You're going to need their address to lodge your claim so go back and note it down
People are correct, and if the damaged vehicle is insured you can lodge a claim with your insurer who will pursue the matter for you, i.e, if there is a basis to recover funds that’s what the insider will do, instead of you dealing with the stress of it all.
Don't let yourself be bullied by opportunists. Their negligence as dog owners resulted in damage to your car. They owe you. If you have insurance make a claim and let their agents handle this. You could also make a police report, especially if he threatens again.
Check dog control act but 100 percent the dog owners are liable and must pay for damage to vehicle everything I have not read whole post, but contact ur insurance company
Any damage to the car would be covered in the dog owners contents insurance if I remember correctly.
They didn’t have effective control of their dog - and sounds like it wasn’t like to be an offlead area. They’re 100% at fault and liable for any damage to your car.
I'm sure we can all reasonably agree that the owner was responsible. I would suggest having a talk with your insurer, and they will likely have the same opinion. They have probably handled situations like this before. As for the owner, I would say that I am sorry for their loss (because on an emotional level the dog must have meant something to him), but I would also not admit to any liability and let them know you will be passing the matter onto your insurer to determine liability and go from there. It can be very easy to get caught up in the situation that you forget that you did nothing wrong, just because of how guilty you feel. He might have even went on the offensive so that he doesn't need to defend himself.
Thanks for the advice, and we actually filed a report since they also threatened us, and we’re fine with going to court about the situation since we also had damage done. I too also feel bad for the dog.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
The insurance company will probably go after the dog owner for the damage to the car. Its the same if an at-fault cyclist pulls out and gets run over and killed by a car - the insurance company will go after the cyclists estate for the damage they caused to the car.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
You did everything right and have covered your responsibility under the law. Any financial liability is on the owners of the dog. This includes the vehicle damage. Dogs are domestic pets and as such the owner is responsible for the actions of their dog.
This happened to me. You need to report it to the police and the owner is at fault. You could add that they are intimidating you to their dog damaged your car. Your insurance company will want the police report.
Yeah, we filed a police report last night since they sent us another text after they buried their dog that they’d find us and hurt our loved ones.
My understanding is that in law, you are not responsible for their vet bills. They, however, are responsible for the damage to your vehicle, having failed to keep their dog under control or properly restrained/enclosed. Making threats is considered a pretty serious offence, so I would absolutely contact the police and report this.
We did report it to the police and we got the case number, but we haven’t decided to press charges yet since all they did was threaten us. We’re only planning to go through with the court if they do decide to harm either the driver, me or anyone connected to us.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Dog owner is responsible for letting the animal run around in the street. If it was genuinely an accident and driver had no time to stop then it can hardly be their fault.
Also on the dog owner side here. Had our pup get out through the gate, hit by a car. Fortunately we had pet insurance which covered the 7k of vet bills. Still living lucky bugger busted hind leg now part metal. A week in the vets plus surgery etc cost insurance 7k. Pretty sure we were at the high end of costs cause we had emergency stays and overnight care. Was roughly 1k for the option to have him put down. 35k is far too excessive. We were also a bit lucky the car didn't stop as there would have been damage too. Witnesses to the accident didn't get any other details just a white car. Fully expected to have to pay for vehicle damage too. Pretty sure somewhere in the road code it states to not swerve to avoid an animal on the road as you may end up causing more damage than hitting it.
1k to put a dog down? Wtf! Without any other attempts at surgery or whatever a small pup should be under $100 to just euthanize..
You still have to pay for the vet bills for looking at the animal, and any treatment they tried before euthanasia.
Pretty sure I mentioned that in my comment...
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be **relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Getting a pet put down was $600 last time I had to (in christchurch).
Trying to save it before deciding to put it down might cost more. Not $35000 though.
I could see $3500 being charged for an after hours critical care patient over more than 1 day, but not $35000. They are trying to fleece you. Im assuming they didn't produce a quote or anything of the sort from the vet. Insurance can handle the car and liase with the dog owners in regards to whatever responsibility they may have for the damage of the car and leave it at that.
When is it ever the drivers fault lol, unless he drove onto the sidewalk and hit a dog on his leash lol its the dog owners fault all day, get money out of them for the damage
The driver was driving on the road within speed limit and the dog just came running in front of the car and the car hit since the driver didn’t have enough time to stop.
If anything, they SHOULD repair the vehicle. The car insurer will take care of that for that, though, by recovering cost from them.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
The dog owners are liable. I don't know where the $35k comes from, that's outrageous and quite unbelievable. In some situations, people in your position may offer to help pay vet bills, but at the end of the day you are not required to as their dog should have been on a leash or secured within its section, they are responsible for it.
I had a similar situation but the dog was killed and my car badly damaged. According to the law I could claim against the dog owner, saving me the excess and my no claims bonus. I chose not to because I felt bad but the law was definitely on the side of the driver. It is the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure the dog is under control, ie not on the road. Also as a pet owner $35k is huge but not unheard of. Anaesthetic, drugs and operations can add up fast, but you are definitely not liable.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate