Damaged Car Due to Hitting Dog on public road

Lvictoria76 on 15/05/2016 - 20:26
Last edited 15/05/2016 - 20:31 by 1 other user

Hi All,

I would really appreciate some advice. Unfortunately a few weeks ago I hit a dog while driving to the shops(it was dark and he ran out in front of me) Thankfully the dog survived after some major vet work. My car has approximately $2000 damage to front end. I understand the responsibility falls on the owner for the damaged caused however I am not having much luck and he is not answering my calls. Apparently a housemate left a gate open leading to the dog being at large. The owner is blaming the flat mate….. I want to avoid going through my own car insurance do to my rating potentially dropping and premium increasing. (this happened to me a couple of years ago after my car was "keyed"). I am considering seeking legal advice. Has anyone else been in this position or offer any advice?

Many thanks

Vicki

Automotive

Comments

  • altomic on 15/05/2016 - 20:42
    +22

    Call Vic legal aid and get some proper advice.

    03 9269 0234

    • victoria76 on 15/05/2016 - 20:51
      +2

      Thanks so much! Will do.

    • arcticmonkey on 17/05/2016 - 06:50
      +23

      If you want to use Legal Aid, you better get in quick.

      Turnbull/the Liberal's are slowing killing its funding off:

      http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-29/legal-aid-to-slash-…

      http://m.theage.com.au/comment/cant-afford-a-lawyer-youre-ou…

      Rich people don't use Legal Aid so it's clearly not a priority for Turnbull/the Liberal's.

      • altomic on 17/05/2016 - 07:04
        +7

        That's community legal centres -CLCs. The various state Legal Aid commissions are, and have never (yet), been affected by cuts.

        Funding cuts to CLCs is bad as they provide so much assistance to populations that can't readily access LA.

        • altomic on 18/05/2016 - 19:44
          +6

          @Mr Rort: that is a misguided and narrow minded opinion and will shortly be negged into oblivion.

          no one is talking about use abuse of legal aid.

          no one has called people who use legal trash - you have introduced that idea.

          articmonkeys comment is a tad inaccurate, in that rich people don't use Legal AId, as Legal Aid offers a free advice service -in person or over the phone with a lawyer (bookings are sometimes required). This service is not means tested.

          To apply for legal assistance with Legal Aid is a different matter. Legal Aid commissions were established to assist financially disadvantaged people to have ready access to legal services.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/05/2016 - 00:51
          -2

          @altomic:

          There is nothing wrong with using Legal Aid. Most people would only use it once in a lifetime… But lets make something perfectly clear there are those who abuse the service repetitively.

          As many people would not have a problem in calling those who are unemployed and not working for work profanities I do not believe that calling those who abuses legal aid a "L** L**es" is offensive (might deserve a neg but definitely does not require removal)

          Seriously how the mod/s can allow someone to name an actual person 'Turnbull' and allow the post to exist (and not remove it on the grounds of a personal attack) yet describing a group of undesirables with no specific name/race/gender/location etc. a personal attack really does not make any sense or clearly demonstrates the mod/s personal bias or double standard in policing the forums.

        • altomic on 23/05/2016 - 13:10

          @Mr Rort:

          There is nothing wrong with using Legal Aid. Most people would only use it once in a lifetime… But lets make something perfectly clear there are those who abuse the service repetitively.

          I agree with and somewhat the last point. Legal Aid manages requests for aid through a series of guidelines and tests to determine eligibility for assistance both initially and through an ongoing management of legal matters. Certainly some people attempt to abuse it (just as people with money can abuse the legal system by paying for a solicitor).

          I do not believe that calling those who abuses legal aid a "L** L**es" is offensive

          again, you have introduced this concept. articmonkey simply stated that rich people don't use legalaid, and as I pointed out, that is a little inaccurate, though the level of service provided to "rich" people is a lot less, in that it is limited to advice only.

          Seriously how the mod/s can allow someone to name an actual person 'Turnbull' and allow the post to exist (and not remove it on the grounds of a personal attack) yet describing a group of undesirables with no specific name/race/gender/location etc. a personal attack really does not make any sense or clearly demonstrates the mod/s personal bias or double standard in policing the forums.

          Should the word "Turnbull" be removed and substituted with "Prime Minister" or better "government"? Mr Turnbull is the leader of the government. The government is responsible for making decisions. Mr Turnbull apparently controls the government.

          And everytime the government makes a decision that is not - pragmatic and doesn't assist those in lower economic then would it be right when some mentions the "prime minister" and that is a "personal attack"?

          and again, you're bringing into this discussion the idea of (and I quote you) "undesirables with no specific name/race/gender/location etc".

          what is occurring here is an open discussion on a public internet forum

  • Olokun on 15/05/2016 - 20:53
    +64

    So what you are saying is you would rather sue someone for the small chance of being able to recover some of the costs instead of utilising the insurance policy you have for these such events?

    Remember when you sue someone there is

    • legal costs which you will not get back 100% even if you win
    • lost time and time off work
    • even if you win in court, and he refuses to pay you will need to then get an order and sheriff involved etc
    • even with all the above, he might have no assests and you still end up with nothing.

    You are willing to go through all the above to save a possible increase in your premium.

    • victoria76 on 15/05/2016 - 21:02
      +6

      Thanks for the reply, I would prefer not to go down that path - and I agree that it could backfire and I could be out of pocket. Ideally I wish the dog owner would take responsibility for costs - but difficult when my calls are ignored! You raise a good point, will contact insurance company and sus out options. I wonder if I provided owners details if they would recover costs (or at least $600 excess from them??)

      Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

      • Olokun on 15/05/2016 - 21:25
        +7

        Have a look at your insurers PDS, it will state what is required to avoid paying the excess and under what circumstances you will need to pay it up front and have it refunded. Ie After they have recovered the costs from the at fault party.

        • victoria76 on 15/05/2016 - 21:44
          +1

          Will do - much appreciated.

      • JediJan on 16/05/2016 - 15:24
        +16

        As far as I am aware; if you can name the guilty party (it is the dog owner) then your car insurance company has no right to use your excess. If the dog owner disputes this (how can he?) then it is his problem to attempt recovery of any costs from his flat mate. You should in no way be inconvenienced by your insurance company's problem to recover the costs. They may ask you to appear as witness to the event, in a later court proceeding against the owner (guilty party), but that is about it. I realise that it is an upsetting time for all concerned, but you should not be put to further annoyance. Leave it with your insurance company to sort out, have them check out the damage, quotes etc. asap and have your car put to rights. The same applies to hitting livestock on country roads; locate the owner of the animal if you can and get your insurance company to fix the problem; it is what you pay your insurance premium for.

        • victoria76 on 16/05/2016 - 19:54
          +5

          Thanks JediJan,

          I think we are on a similar wavelength! Will give the owner another opportunity to respond, then pursue insurance options.

          Thanks for responding

        • sa5ha on 16/05/2016 - 22:18
          +3

          Depends on the insurer. A lot of them won't repair your vehicle until the excess is paid by you, and then they'll refund you the excess down the track if/when they are repaid the full cost of repairs from the other party involved.

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 12:55

          @sa5ha:
          If the insurer does that then I would look for another. Renewals time always finds me checking out other options, or, at the very least, asking the insurance company for a better deal … and I have been receiving discounts for years.

        • macrocephalic on 17/05/2016 - 17:03
          +1

          It might not be your fault, but your premiums may (will) increase because of it. Not sure, try performing two quotes, and putting different numbers in when they ask you how many not at fault accidents you've had.

        • gimli on 17/05/2016 - 21:22
          +1

          @victoria76:

          I would leave it with insurance company. They will pursue legal options if they think it is necessary.

          (Ps Would you claim insurance if legal aid told you that it you would not be able to sue dog owner? If yes then just talk to insurance and save your own time)

        • Jalif on 18/05/2016 - 21:15

          If only this was how insurance works.

          If you name the party, and the insurance company can recover the money, you don't pay an excess.

          If they can't recover, you're out of luck.

    • nikey2k27 on 17/05/2016 - 18:25
      +2

      I went this process after friend not have car insurance. he sue after it she just declare bankruptcy. he got $0.00 plus he had to pay court cost.

      • Utopian on 18/05/2016 - 11:02
        +6

        There's clearly a lot more to this story.

      • 4agte on 18/05/2016 - 18:28
        +1

        You she was sued after becoming bankrupt. The persons bankruptcy would have no bearing on that court case at all. A previous bankrupcy does not get someone out of future debts and obligations

        • nikey2k27 on 19/05/2016 - 14:19

          the day after he went to enforce the order by the court she file for bankruptcy.

        • Joxer on 21/05/2016 - 12:22

          If your debt arises from matters before bankruptcy then you just become another unsecured creditor. Only takes 10k to bankrupt someone.

      • asianbargain on 20/05/2016 - 11:20
        +1

        May I know How much he sue her for to make her declare bankruptcy?

        • nikey2k27 on 20/05/2016 - 14:07
          +1

          14,000 for cost of car replace.

    • knk on 18/05/2016 - 12:01

      I had thought that if you went to your insurance company and made a claim, they'd sort it out for you (I'm assuming you'd pay excess and have it reimbursed if funds could be retrieved), and they would themselves go after the party at fault to re-coupe the money.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 18/05/2016 - 12:28
      +4

      No, what he's saying is; because people are not honest and decent enough to take responsibility for the damage they've caused and pay for it, you now have to use the legal system to get the money you are owed.

      We have insurance in the cases that the person responsible for causing the damage cannot be traced.

      Why should the op be out of pocket with increased insurance premiums, just because the perpetrator won't pay up?

      The reason this situations always occur is because people no longer take responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's problem to sort out.

      • McFly on 18/05/2016 - 13:30

        So true.
        People are actually escaping punishment for vehicle crimes because they can't control themselves when it comes to alcohol/drugs!

      • cameldownunder on 18/05/2016 - 17:05

        Would the dog be covered under house and content insurance?

        • strangeloops66 on 21/05/2016 - 13:54
          +1

          Many home and contents insurance policies include public/legal liability cover that applies to accidents occurring anywhere in Australia.

    • Untameable on 18/05/2016 - 14:55
      +3

      The increase of costs in considerable. Someone hit my car in a parking lot and there was no video. Made my claim, $500 excess, damage cost the insurance company about $1-1.5k plus hire car.

      Next renewal my no claim bonus went down a year and my premium went up to almost DOUBLE. Now I pay that every single damned month.

      OP is totally right to make the right people pay.

    • MrMcHairyHead on 19/05/2016 - 10:05

      Why should OP pay when it wasn't their fault? They're still going to be out the full 2000$ if they make a claim, if they have a standard 600$ excess then the increase in premiums.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 16/05/2016 - 03:35
      +49

      "Just be glad you did not kill the animal."

      That is a completely unfair/unjustfied statement dog, because the OP was in no way at fault here. The correct interpretation here is:

      'It is lucky that despite someone irresponsibly enabling the dog to get loose/run free, it was ultimately not killed'.

      • dogboy on 16/05/2016 - 07:38
        +3

        Fair enough

        • gimli on 17/05/2016 - 21:24
          +14

          Good to see you live up to your name. dogboy - defender of all dogs

        • xsacha on 18/05/2016 - 07:00
          +1

          @Gimli: Good to see you live up to your name. Gimli - skilled defender.

        • gimli on 18/05/2016 - 07:02
          +4

          @xsacha:

          Nice to see a non legolas fanboi for a change. 😉

        • [Deactivated] on 19/05/2016 - 18:30

          @Gimli: Elves are boring anyway, no personality.

        • gimli on 19/05/2016 - 19:08

          @voolish:

          Some people say they are pretty.

        • asianbargain on 20/05/2016 - 11:21

          @Gimli: funny

      • fefris on 18/05/2016 - 12:42
        -6

        How do you know this, perhaps the op was speeding, drunk, drugged….

        If this was a child they would not be asking the parents to pay for the car, they would be hoping not to be charged.

        Car insurance is for a reason use it

        • [Deactivated] on 19/05/2016 - 01:54
          +1

          lol this is the dumbest logic. hahaha

        • asianbargain on 20/05/2016 - 11:22

          Hahahaha

      • cameldownunder on 18/05/2016 - 17:06
        +1

        Imagine if the dog attacked someone, and would have mauled the person badly.

        • Euphemistic on 19/05/2016 - 08:20

          was the person walking dangerously without due care? They really should watch where they are going so they don't run into wild dogs.

  • fruit on 15/05/2016 - 21:49
    +7

    my rating potentially dropping and premium increasing

    That's if it's your fault or they cannot find who was at fault.

    • victoria76 on 15/05/2016 - 21:53
      +3

      That is interesting - thank you, will definitely investigate tomorrow. Thinking back I was unable to identify whoever keyed my car in a shopping centre (a few cars were targeted) hence rating drop and $100+ extra in annual premium. I have details of dog owner and witnesses to incident. Thanks again

      • fruit on 15/05/2016 - 21:55
        +1

        Perhaps give them a call tomorrow

        • victoria76 on 15/05/2016 - 21:56
          +1

          Will do! Cheers

        • the-mal on 15/05/2016 - 22:02
          +5

          @victoria76: Please be aware that if you identify yourself when you talk to your insurance company (even if just making inquiries) they can use this info to alter your risk rating.

          If you're going to call them do it anonymously and ask hypotheticals or be fairly certain you're going to claim because they will record the info from your call and if you identify yourself it will affect your risk rating and thus potentially your premiums.

        • victoria76 on 15/05/2016 - 22:20

          Really appreciate for the info - Will remain anonymous while I gather information (might be worth disabling phone number too!) After never claiming in 20 years of insurance they bumped me from rating 1 to 3 after vandalism claim. Thanks again.

        • RockyRaccoon on 16/05/2016 - 02:59
          -4

          @victoria76: Not a good idea. Remember that if you fail to report the accident within a period of time you wont be covered. Some policies state it needs to be within 24 hrs unless you are unable (eg hospitalised) .

          Also many wont discuss it privately. They also record calls, so when you ring later they can match.

          Just be up front, maybe say you (as a female) were so upset and emotional about the dog being hurt that the dog was hurt, you just couldnt put it together to call them earlier if they say anything.

          Its an accident you are required to declare it in future policy renewals, read past renewal notices and you will see.

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 13:01
          +1

          @victoria76: After many years of claim free insurance they should have you on a protected rating 1 (some used to offer this). I would be seeking a better option from another insurer after this. This incident should not affect your rating at all; you have identified the guilty party.

        • stonkered on 17/05/2016 - 20:12

          @RockyRaccoon:

          Yep, honesty the best policy, provided by honest you really mean dishonest.

        • ankor on 17/05/2016 - 21:17

          @RockyRaccoon:

          It's an insurance company and not the nsa/asio dude..

        • RockyRaccoon on 17/05/2016 - 21:44

          @ankor: absolutely. I never inferred they were like nsa/asio investigators, where are you coming from ..dude?

          All I said is what the policies and renewal notices state plus nearly ever large organisation records calls, and they can check back if they wish, so anonymous calling isn't always anonymous.

          Its letting the OP know, thats all.

        • hayne on 18/05/2016 - 16:16
          +1

          @RockyRaccoon: If you don't wish to have the call recorded, all you need to do is advise the organisation of that and they are then not permitted to record you. That's why you always hear that message in call centre calls. It's a legal requirement that they notify you and have your permission. OP could conceivably ask not to be recorded and if they ask for her details, she can decline to give them.

          Reporting within a period of time is usually a legal requirement in certain circumstances for notifying police after an accident (in NSW when someone is killed, trapped or injured; a driver has failed to exchange details; or when either party is drunk or under influence of drugs). Not sure where an injured animal comes into this. I'm certainly aware of insurance policies which allow you to claim months after an incident that doesn't fall under the above occurs, but I haven't read every PDS out there - suppose OP needs to read her PDS to make sure.

        • RockyRaccoon on 18/05/2016 - 16:42

          @hayne:

          I haven't read every PDS out there - suppose OP needs to read her PDS to make sure

          All I said, which somehow some seem not to like this advice, was

          Remember that if you fail to report the accident within a period of time you wont be covered. Some policies state it needs to be within 24 hrs

          Some Policies, not all. And each has its own time limit

          As you said the OP needs to read their policy to be sure. Which I thought I also implied.

          BTW Legal aid QLD says the same here (Although not specifically 24 hrs)

          http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Find-legal-information/Cars-a…

          If you have a car insurance policy, you should let your insurer know about the accident as soon as possible. This is a requirement of most insurance policies.

          With the non recording of calls, again that was implied by reminding the op that this happens.

        • ankor on 19/05/2016 - 21:50

          @RockyRaccoon: I didn't think that they would match your phone number to your policy if you called in and didn't identify yourself? I always get asked privacy verifiers when I call any private corporation about my accounts.

        • serpserpserp on 21/05/2016 - 12:49

          @the-mal:

          Make sure you use your Bane voice on the phone so they can't track you down…

    • the-mal on 15/05/2016 - 21:59
      +5

      That's incorrect but a common misconception.

      Your risk rating is affected by everything, including not at fault accidents. Obviously premiums won't go up as much as if it was at-fault but they'll still be affected.

      Your insurance company will use every piece of information they have on you to calculate your risk rating. Including all accidents and all claims.

      • PlagueistheCheap on 19/05/2016 - 10:50

        This is correct. I had two not at fault claims in one year where the other driver was identified. My premium went up roughly 10% more than it would have if there was no claim. I was told I am considered more 'at risk' now.

        You can verify this in any online quote. It will ask if you have made any claims in the last 2 years where you are not at fault. Try toggling this option on and off and you will see the premium change.

    • Vampyr on 16/05/2016 - 07:01
      +1

      Exactly. Two completely different situations.

  • victoria76 on 15/05/2016 - 21:50
    +15

    Yes, so relieved the dog survived. I am an animal lover and felt distressed from what happened. (two of my children were with me at the time and they were also very upset). No didn't pay for vet bills - I agree that the cost of vet care would have exceeded my repairs however I was just innocently driving along minding my own business. I just think it is not fair that I should be out of pocket.

    • PJC on 16/05/2016 - 00:23
      +2

      I hope the member who negged your comment did so unintentionally. Have a +vote, and may the person who keyed your car now have a diseased hand. Remember, you can change your insurance company next year and probably save money.

      • Janko on 17/05/2016 - 11:40
        +2

        New insurance company will ask, "Have you made any claims in the last xx years". I think this is why insurance companies will still put premiums up, even if not at fault.

        • bobbified on 17/05/2016 - 15:26
          -1

          They ask about "at-fault" claims - claims where the insured is actually at-fault or where the responsible party can't be identified (and the insurer can't recover their costs).

        • macrocephalic on 17/05/2016 - 17:05
          +3

          @bobbified: Actually, they will normally ask about at fault and not at fault claims. Both will affect your risk rating.

        • bobbified on 17/05/2016 - 18:31

          @macrocephalic:

          I stand corrected! My bad!

      • tomleonhart on 17/05/2016 - 06:15
        +11

        I think we found the dog owner in OP's story

        • Euphemistic on 17/05/2016 - 07:36
          +2

          Nope. I'm coming from this of the point of view of a cyclist. There are too many drivers that do not drive tot the conditions and don't pay enough attention and end up hitting stuff and injuring wildlife, pedestrians , fences, trees, other cars.

          I feel for the OP in a situation that may not have been avoidable, but want others to recognise that driving a two tonne box of metal can be dealt and more care needs to be taken. This country teaches it's drivers to drive to the speed limit and expect nothing to be on the roads in the way. We are not taught to drive to the conditions, nor drive in a manner that would anticipate an incident like a child, dog or anything to appear suddenly and still be able to avoid a crash.

        • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 13:17

          @Euphemistic: I agree with what you have said here. Some of us though have been taught to drive according to the road conditions.

          Anticipating can only go so far though and drivers are not always at fault, as in this unfortunate sutuation. More care needs to be taken by all road users, pedestrians and pet/livestock owners.

          You are very lucky, if when riding your bike a dark streak doesn't appear out of nowhere to attack you. I had to put my feet on the handlebars! Not the first or last time that hated dog did that. It was reported by several people but it eluded the dog catcher to the very end.

      • chriskq on 17/05/2016 - 11:00
        +1

        haha tell him he's dreaming

      • JediJan on 17/05/2016 - 12:25
        +8

        Dog owner is negligent! The driver is in no way at fault. Perhaps you missed the point that she made to say she had witnesses also; not that any are required.

        You mean lucky the driver and her passengers were not injured also. Nonsense if you feel the dog owner has any right to chase her for bills.

        Pet (and livestock) owners have the responsibility to ensure these animals cannot run freely on public roads. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

      • dazweeja on 17/05/2016 - 14:47
        +6

        If my dog runs onto the road, that is my responsibility. It is my job to stop this ever happening.

        • dazweeja on 17/05/2016 - 17:07
          +8

          @matt_will_fix_it:

          A dog is a domesticated animal with a legal owner who bears responsibility. I can be sued if my dog bites someone too, even though I can't sue anyone for a kangaroo bite. It's not that complicated.

        • tomleonhart on 17/05/2016 - 18:36
          +3

          @matt_will_fix_it: Wild animal you can't sue anyone.
          Pet you can sue the owner

        • wtfnodeal on 17/05/2016 - 20:11
          +2

          @matt_will_fix_it: terrible examples you made there.

        • StewBalls on 18/05/2016 - 12:17

          @matt_will_fix_it:

          If it were a mythical animal (eg a unicorn or phoenix) who would you sue?

          Fixed.

        • syousef on 19/05/2016 - 12:54
          +2

          @StewBalls:

          If it were a mythical animal (eg a unicorn or phoenix) who would you sue?

          Ask your local politician. I'm sure they'd blame the other party last time they were in office.

        • lasertip on 21/05/2016 - 15:10

          @tomleonhart:

          Hmm not necessarily. You might be able to successfully sue the local council for a kangaroo bite depending on the circumstances. Failure to provide adequate warning of potential risk, etc.

        • JediJan on 21/05/2016 - 16:45

          @lasertip:
          I recall reading, not so long ago in a local paper, complaints from cat owners were being made to Casey Council. Apparently their roaming cats were being taken by foxes. The cat owners blamed the Council, expecting the Council to increase the fox baiting program. Council basically said it was their problem living in a rural area. I did notice the program funding had been increased of late though.

          Pet owners should be more careful to keep their pets safe. I have seen more foxes over the years, and some of them are much closer than most would think. Not only falcons and other prey seeking birds to be concerned with.

    • ubcool on 18/05/2016 - 12:07
      -3

      but you think it's fair that the dog owner should be out of pocket massively ? He has a crippled dog thousands in bet fees and now you want to dump another load on him because you're worried your premiums might go up a bit ? Sometimes life is unfair , be a decent person suck up the small increase in premiums you might not even get and and just be thankful you aren't the dog owner,,,

      • knk on 18/05/2016 - 12:10
        +4

        Yes it's fair. If you want to care for an animal, then do so safely so it doesn't cause property damage and injury to your pet. If you make a mistake, pay for it.

        In the ops case it's only 2k, but it could likely be much more if it were a bigger dog, more extreme circumstances or a more expensive car What if it was 10k, 20k, 30k of damage? Your insurance company shouldn't cough up the cash because someone was irresponsible.

        • ubcool on 18/05/2016 - 12:42
          -2

          He wasn't irrisposble it was his flat mates fault , the guy has a crippled dog thousands in bills and you feel sorry for the insurance company who subsidised for cases like this !?

        • knk on 18/05/2016 - 12:44
          +1

          @ubcool:

          Then the onus is on the flat mate, it's surely not on the guy who hit the dog.

          edit: I also wanted to say it's not me feeling 'sorry' for the insurance company. I just respect the arrangement you make with these companies. You pay them a fee to cover your ass when you do something wrong OR the person at fault can't be found / costs re-couped. Having insurance companies cover issues like this is a sure fire way to drive up premiums.

        • tomleonhart on 18/05/2016 - 13:24
          +6

          @ubcool: If I was OP, I won't give a toss about whose fault it is. All I care is it isn't mine. End of Story for me.

          The dog owner can sort the responsibility bit out between him and his flat mate.

        • ubcool on 18/05/2016 - 13:26
          -2

          @knk: yes the root cause was due to him not closing the gate properly but don't you think being left with probably a $5000+ bill for not properly closing a gate a bit harsh also ?! It was a an very unlucky accident I think a bit of magnanimity in the situation wouldn't go amiss..

        • ubcool on 18/05/2016 - 13:41
          -3

          Would you not give a toss also if it was a toddler she hit.

        • tomleonhart on 18/05/2016 - 14:26
          +2

          @ubcool: Don't take it out of context. She didn't hit a toddler.

        • knk on 18/05/2016 - 14:54
          +2

          @ubcool:

          Harsh maybe, but that doesn't come into it. It's a matter of liability, and someone else ie not the guy who hit the dog is responsible.

      • McFly on 18/05/2016 - 13:27
        +1

        but you think it's fair that the dog owner should be out of pocket massively ?
        Sometimes life is unfair

        Answered your own question.

        He has a damaged car thousands in repair fees and now you want to dump another load on him by making his premiums go up ? Sometimes life is unfair , be a decent person suck up the vet and repair fees and and just be thankful you aren't the car owner,,,

        FTFY

        • ubcool on 18/05/2016 - 14:05
          -2

          im taking it your kinda person who would sue even if it was a toddler that had been hit so you could save $100 on next years premium… and your analogy doesn't work as you cant have thousands in repair fees and increased premiums, its actually stupid , but thanks anyway…

        • McFly on 18/05/2016 - 14:48
          +1

          @ubcool: Yeah, that's the stupid part lol.
          Funny you mention that.
          In fact I have hit someone in my car - it was on top of a hill and this old guy ran out in front of me and I took him out.
          Dented the bonnet and smashed the windscreen. I visited him in hospital (he wasn't badly injured considering what had happened) and met his family and they were very nice and realised it wasn't my fault.
          You seem to think you know me, take a guess as to whether I asked them for any money…

        • knk on 18/05/2016 - 14:55

          @ubcool:

          You live in a fantasy world mate.

          Life isn't "fair"

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join