• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Jack
    July 02, 2010 - 13:34

    Pets must be on a leash. Moose are not pets, children are not pets (but parents are still responsible for them). Clear cut decision. If pet was on leash, pet would be alive, car would not be damaged. Luckily, in the vehicular accident, the driver never injured a human. More people here in NL need to know you CAN'T LET YOUR PETS ROAM FREE AND THIS IS WHY, THEY GET STRUCK AND CAUSE DAMAGE. OBEY THE LAWS, MORONS.

  • Saucy Face
    July 02, 2010 - 13:34

    Earl asks: Why should the owner of the car foot the bill for running into a dog that was in the road illegally in the first place?

    So tell me Ed, what do you know about the driver's condition at the time for you to make this blanket statement? Was he speeding? On his cell phone? Impaired? Asleep at the wheel? Or are you suggesting that it doesnt matter?

    My main question to you and everyone else who is quick to condemn the dog's owner is this: If your 8 year old child jumped out of your car and ran onto the street and was killed, shouldn't you be responsible for neglect as well? Would you think it fair if State Farm came to you looking for compensation for the driver if your child's accident damaged his vehicle? After all, you would be the one responsible for your child's actions.

    As usual, people like you and Busy Bayman comment after reading an article that only gives the sensational side of the story without hearing the other side without thinking for a minute of the possible implications of your comments may mean to you in the future.

  • Billy
    July 02, 2010 - 13:34

    I agree with BusyBayman - and the dog doesn't have a leg to stand on either.

  • Randy
    July 02, 2010 - 13:32

    What would happen if a child was riding there bike on the road without a helmet and got ran over by a car, there is a bylaw stating that it is illegal for a child under the age of 18 to ride a bike without one? Who is at fault? Will the insurance company make the parents of that child pay for repairs to that vehicle?

  • Jackie
    July 02, 2010 - 13:31

    I agree that laws are laws, but in a case where someone or something has died I don't think it's reasonable to send a grieving family a bill. Heartless.

  • Tim
    July 02, 2010 - 13:30

    Everyone is against these people because they let their dog out without it being on a leash. I wonder how many of these people are Cat owners. Guess what! Cats are not allowed out on the streets either but lots of people let them out. They dirt in peoples' flower beds and tear up garbage bags, and spray on things. I hate cats! I wouldn't be entirely against a national 'Run Down a Cat' day ! Yeah, you guessed it, I'm a dog lover!

  • Telling it like it is
    July 02, 2010 - 13:29

    Who here has taken young drivers of Canada???

    From what I remember, we were told tha by law, we are required to NOT STOP for any animal that darts out into a road. Potentially, you the driver could be found at fault if an accident was to occur involving one or more vehicles.

    END OF STORY.

    Sorry for the loss of your dog but if the law states you are at fault, then you at fault.

  • Gus
    July 02, 2010 - 13:26

    So, if I strike and kill a moose on the grounds of Terra Nova Park, will the park pay for the damages?

    Makes the same kind of (non)sense to me.

  • andrea
    July 02, 2010 - 13:25

    I think insurance companies are heartless and gutless. What ever happened to the driver be responsilbe and in control of your vechile at all times. Whether on a crosswalk or not vechiles have to yeild the right of way to pedestrians, what's the difference if its an animal. People can agree back and forth for ever but the bottom line is the driver is wrong and the insurance company is grabbing at straws.
    A driver always has to be prepared for what could happen.
    I support the family of the dog 100 % and I hope the insurance company or court if it gets to that point can have a solid case proving the driver wasn't neglient. Witnesses, proof that the driver wasn't on the phone or something of that nature. It should be the insurance company time now to prove the driver was following the rules of the road, not on the phone or eating etc... they must prove the driver did everything to try to prevent the accident. It would also be interesting to note whether the damage was actually caused from the collision with the dog. Was the car damaged prior to the accident and someone is just trying to claim there lose back somehow.
    There is a pretty big margin for error I think.

  • Busy Bayman
    July 02, 2010 - 13:25

    Oh well, the pet owners don't have a leg to stand on here. Laws are laws and are in place for a reason.

  • Busy Bayman
    July 02, 2010 - 13:25

    Hey, I never said I agreed with it. It appears the insurance agency is using this bylaw as a scapegoat. And so they are rightfully entitled to. The driver probably had comprehensive coverage which pays for animal damage, but this article says it's the insurance agency looking to reclaim their money, not the driver. Also, I doubt there is a law stating that your kids must be kept on leash when off private property so that's an unjust comparison, apples to oranges. As noted in the article, the courts will always side with the insurance companies on these types of incidents. Dogs are notorious for chasing vehicles, other pets and people. That's why there are laws established to keep them tethered on public property.

    And Gus, what does hitting a moose in Terra Nova Park got to do with anything? Does the park own the wildlife? No. You hit a wild animal and it's your fault, you hit a roaming 'pet' and it's the pet owners fault.

  • Keith
    July 02, 2010 - 13:24

    I agree with the heartless sentiments expressed here, but the insurance company is within its rights to push for compensation. Legal and moral aren't the same thing.

    On the other hand, they might have a hard time convincing a judge on the 100% part. The owners could refuse to pay or offer to pay half and then tell the company that if they want the whole amount they'll have to sue. Depending on the amount involved and how strong a case they have, the company may decide to let it go rather than risk losing in court and not only having to swallow the legal costs, but have a precedent that would make it harder to pursue similar actions in the future.

    A compromise offer to State Farm by the owners would decrease the likelihood of a court action and potentially save themselves a chunk of change in the bargain.

  • P
    July 02, 2010 - 13:23

    Wow...what great insight here on this topic?

    Gus - Terra Nova Park does not own the moose you hit with your vehicle. And there is no law stating that Terra Nova Park is required to have their moose's on leashes. Give me a break. Great example.

    Steve S - I'm sure there are piles of dog haters out there dying to drive their vehicle insurance rates through the roof by putting in a dozen claims a month for the potential to injury a few does. Once again. Give me a break.

    This story isn't even debatable. In fact I don't even understand why it is a 'story'. Seems to make all the legal sense in the world.

  • Steve
    July 02, 2010 - 13:21

    I guess if there is one thing that we should be thankful for is that the accident involved a dog.

    I can only imagine what the insurance company would have done if it was this persons child who illegally ran into the street!

  • leash law
    July 02, 2010 - 13:20

    People who let their pets loose are quite simply morons. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a pet may possibly run in front of a moving vehicle.

    I myself struck a dog with my car a few years ago. The owners did not have sense enough to keep the pet in the house or in a fenced yard where it was safe. I did all I could do for the poor unfortunate little dog and offered to carry the dog and owner to a vet but Sadly the dog perished before anything could be done.

    Please folks, keep your pets where they are safe, don't let them roam.

  • Corrinea
    July 02, 2010 - 13:20

    OH come on now, I agree with Steve , So if I park my car illegally in the middle of the street, and I responsible if sometones hits it? I don't think so, I agree with 50/50, The driver should be aware of what is in his path and drive accordingly, if they did not see the dog would they have seen a person in a wheelchair, a child or a senior in the roadway. Nice to know no one here has ever broken a law.....Give me a break

  • Earl
    July 02, 2010 - 13:18

    This is pretty black and white if you ask me. As long as city bylaws state that animals aren't permitted to roam free, any damage caused by such an animal (either through the animal's doing or by way of an accident such as this) should be the owner's sole responsibility. It's unfortunate, but the law is there for a reason. Why should the owner of the car foot the bill for running into a dog that was in the road illegally in the first place?

  • Jackie
    July 02, 2010 - 13:17

    Okay so if you're saying that the dog's owner is responsible because he was in the street, what about people who hit moose? How is it ANY different? Moose control should be the responsibility of the Province. Do they get the bill when a driver hits a moose and damages their vehicle???

  • Rick
    July 02, 2010 - 13:17

    Steve S said it best: say the driver was acting negligent and instead of a dog it was a young kid . I am sure the Insurance company would not return to the family who has lost or is nursing a child back to health for the damages. Dogs are supposed to be supervised and so are kids. No difference.

  • leash please
    July 02, 2010 - 13:15

    The dog's owner was negligent, in fact I would go as far to say the the owner was an idiot.

    It is sad that this family lost their pet in this manner, but a dog running on the loose is able to dart in front of a vehicle before a driver can react in sufficient time to stop, I don't care how good or carefull a driver you are.

    Who in their right mind would allow their beloved pet loose to run into the street?

    Please people, if you have a dog, have a fenced yard or at the very least a decent size kennel for it to be in if outdoors. I am not an advocate of tethering a dog for long periods of time.

  • Grim
    July 02, 2010 - 13:14

    Can anyone actually read the article and stop going off on wild tangents?

    First hitting a moose is not the same as hitting a dog. The dog is a family pet and domesticated animal.

    The laws in Aurora are no different than in St. John's. Your dog needs to be on a leash. This dog was not and thus the damage done is the owners fault.

    Comparing this to a child is a stupid statement. How is it the same? You can teach children not to run into the road and most people watch thier children more.

    And as a side note there have been cases where a child riding bike has hit a car and the parents of the child held responsible for the damage.

  • Steve
    July 02, 2010 - 13:14

    Valid points, but what about those dog haters out there who could take advantage of this law and deliberately hit a dog? Not to say that this is the case here, but it could happen.

    Also, say the driver was acting negligent and instead of a dog it was a young kid. Would the parent then be responsible for damages? Not all the blame can be placed on the dog and owner; I realize laws are in place for a reason, but drivers need to take some responsibility too.

  • Jou
    July 02, 2010 - 13:13

    It don't think it was black and white. The article clearly states that it was a 'yellow labrador'. If the driver was restricted to hitting only 'black and whites' then he should pay the bill when he hits a 'yellow'. Therefore the insurance company is out of order on this one and the driver should settle the bill.

  • Jack
    July 01, 2010 - 20:24

    Pets must be on a leash. Moose are not pets, children are not pets (but parents are still responsible for them). Clear cut decision. If pet was on leash, pet would be alive, car would not be damaged. Luckily, in the vehicular accident, the driver never injured a human. More people here in NL need to know you CAN'T LET YOUR PETS ROAM FREE AND THIS IS WHY, THEY GET STRUCK AND CAUSE DAMAGE. OBEY THE LAWS, MORONS.

  • Saucy Face
    July 01, 2010 - 20:24

    Earl asks: Why should the owner of the car foot the bill for running into a dog that was in the road illegally in the first place?

    So tell me Ed, what do you know about the driver's condition at the time for you to make this blanket statement? Was he speeding? On his cell phone? Impaired? Asleep at the wheel? Or are you suggesting that it doesnt matter?

    My main question to you and everyone else who is quick to condemn the dog's owner is this: If your 8 year old child jumped out of your car and ran onto the street and was killed, shouldn't you be responsible for neglect as well? Would you think it fair if State Farm came to you looking for compensation for the driver if your child's accident damaged his vehicle? After all, you would be the one responsible for your child's actions.

    As usual, people like you and Busy Bayman comment after reading an article that only gives the sensational side of the story without hearing the other side without thinking for a minute of the possible implications of your comments may mean to you in the future.

  • Billy
    July 01, 2010 - 20:23

    I agree with BusyBayman - and the dog doesn't have a leg to stand on either.

  • Randy
    July 01, 2010 - 20:20

    What would happen if a child was riding there bike on the road without a helmet and got ran over by a car, there is a bylaw stating that it is illegal for a child under the age of 18 to ride a bike without one? Who is at fault? Will the insurance company make the parents of that child pay for repairs to that vehicle?

  • Jackie
    July 01, 2010 - 20:19

    I agree that laws are laws, but in a case where someone or something has died I don't think it's reasonable to send a grieving family a bill. Heartless.

  • Tim
    July 01, 2010 - 20:18

    Everyone is against these people because they let their dog out without it being on a leash. I wonder how many of these people are Cat owners. Guess what! Cats are not allowed out on the streets either but lots of people let them out. They dirt in peoples' flower beds and tear up garbage bags, and spray on things. I hate cats! I wouldn't be entirely against a national 'Run Down a Cat' day ! Yeah, you guessed it, I'm a dog lover!

  • Telling it like it is
    July 01, 2010 - 20:16

    Who here has taken young drivers of Canada???

    From what I remember, we were told tha by law, we are required to NOT STOP for any animal that darts out into a road. Potentially, you the driver could be found at fault if an accident was to occur involving one or more vehicles.

    END OF STORY.

    Sorry for the loss of your dog but if the law states you are at fault, then you at fault.

  • Gus
    July 01, 2010 - 20:13

    So, if I strike and kill a moose on the grounds of Terra Nova Park, will the park pay for the damages?

    Makes the same kind of (non)sense to me.

  • andrea
    July 01, 2010 - 20:12

    I think insurance companies are heartless and gutless. What ever happened to the driver be responsilbe and in control of your vechile at all times. Whether on a crosswalk or not vechiles have to yeild the right of way to pedestrians, what's the difference if its an animal. People can agree back and forth for ever but the bottom line is the driver is wrong and the insurance company is grabbing at straws.
    A driver always has to be prepared for what could happen.
    I support the family of the dog 100 % and I hope the insurance company or court if it gets to that point can have a solid case proving the driver wasn't neglient. Witnesses, proof that the driver wasn't on the phone or something of that nature. It should be the insurance company time now to prove the driver was following the rules of the road, not on the phone or eating etc... they must prove the driver did everything to try to prevent the accident. It would also be interesting to note whether the damage was actually caused from the collision with the dog. Was the car damaged prior to the accident and someone is just trying to claim there lose back somehow.
    There is a pretty big margin for error I think.

  • Busy Bayman
    July 01, 2010 - 20:11

    Oh well, the pet owners don't have a leg to stand on here. Laws are laws and are in place for a reason.

  • Busy Bayman
    July 01, 2010 - 20:11

    Hey, I never said I agreed with it. It appears the insurance agency is using this bylaw as a scapegoat. And so they are rightfully entitled to. The driver probably had comprehensive coverage which pays for animal damage, but this article says it's the insurance agency looking to reclaim their money, not the driver. Also, I doubt there is a law stating that your kids must be kept on leash when off private property so that's an unjust comparison, apples to oranges. As noted in the article, the courts will always side with the insurance companies on these types of incidents. Dogs are notorious for chasing vehicles, other pets and people. That's why there are laws established to keep them tethered on public property.

    And Gus, what does hitting a moose in Terra Nova Park got to do with anything? Does the park own the wildlife? No. You hit a wild animal and it's your fault, you hit a roaming 'pet' and it's the pet owners fault.

  • Keith
    July 01, 2010 - 20:09

    I agree with the heartless sentiments expressed here, but the insurance company is within its rights to push for compensation. Legal and moral aren't the same thing.

    On the other hand, they might have a hard time convincing a judge on the 100% part. The owners could refuse to pay or offer to pay half and then tell the company that if they want the whole amount they'll have to sue. Depending on the amount involved and how strong a case they have, the company may decide to let it go rather than risk losing in court and not only having to swallow the legal costs, but have a precedent that would make it harder to pursue similar actions in the future.

    A compromise offer to State Farm by the owners would decrease the likelihood of a court action and potentially save themselves a chunk of change in the bargain.

  • P
    July 01, 2010 - 20:07

    Wow...what great insight here on this topic?

    Gus - Terra Nova Park does not own the moose you hit with your vehicle. And there is no law stating that Terra Nova Park is required to have their moose's on leashes. Give me a break. Great example.

    Steve S - I'm sure there are piles of dog haters out there dying to drive their vehicle insurance rates through the roof by putting in a dozen claims a month for the potential to injury a few does. Once again. Give me a break.

    This story isn't even debatable. In fact I don't even understand why it is a 'story'. Seems to make all the legal sense in the world.

  • Steve
    July 01, 2010 - 20:04

    I guess if there is one thing that we should be thankful for is that the accident involved a dog.

    I can only imagine what the insurance company would have done if it was this persons child who illegally ran into the street!

  • leash law
    July 01, 2010 - 20:03

    People who let their pets loose are quite simply morons. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a pet may possibly run in front of a moving vehicle.

    I myself struck a dog with my car a few years ago. The owners did not have sense enough to keep the pet in the house or in a fenced yard where it was safe. I did all I could do for the poor unfortunate little dog and offered to carry the dog and owner to a vet but Sadly the dog perished before anything could be done.

    Please folks, keep your pets where they are safe, don't let them roam.

  • Corrinea
    July 01, 2010 - 20:02

    OH come on now, I agree with Steve , So if I park my car illegally in the middle of the street, and I responsible if sometones hits it? I don't think so, I agree with 50/50, The driver should be aware of what is in his path and drive accordingly, if they did not see the dog would they have seen a person in a wheelchair, a child or a senior in the roadway. Nice to know no one here has ever broken a law.....Give me a break

  • Earl
    July 01, 2010 - 20:00

    This is pretty black and white if you ask me. As long as city bylaws state that animals aren't permitted to roam free, any damage caused by such an animal (either through the animal's doing or by way of an accident such as this) should be the owner's sole responsibility. It's unfortunate, but the law is there for a reason. Why should the owner of the car foot the bill for running into a dog that was in the road illegally in the first place?

  • Jackie
    July 01, 2010 - 19:58

    Okay so if you're saying that the dog's owner is responsible because he was in the street, what about people who hit moose? How is it ANY different? Moose control should be the responsibility of the Province. Do they get the bill when a driver hits a moose and damages their vehicle???

  • Rick
    July 01, 2010 - 19:57

    Steve S said it best: say the driver was acting negligent and instead of a dog it was a young kid . I am sure the Insurance company would not return to the family who has lost or is nursing a child back to health for the damages. Dogs are supposed to be supervised and so are kids. No difference.

  • leash please
    July 01, 2010 - 19:55

    The dog's owner was negligent, in fact I would go as far to say the the owner was an idiot.

    It is sad that this family lost their pet in this manner, but a dog running on the loose is able to dart in front of a vehicle before a driver can react in sufficient time to stop, I don't care how good or carefull a driver you are.

    Who in their right mind would allow their beloved pet loose to run into the street?

    Please people, if you have a dog, have a fenced yard or at the very least a decent size kennel for it to be in if outdoors. I am not an advocate of tethering a dog for long periods of time.

  • Grim
    July 01, 2010 - 19:53

    Can anyone actually read the article and stop going off on wild tangents?

    First hitting a moose is not the same as hitting a dog. The dog is a family pet and domesticated animal.

    The laws in Aurora are no different than in St. John's. Your dog needs to be on a leash. This dog was not and thus the damage done is the owners fault.

    Comparing this to a child is a stupid statement. How is it the same? You can teach children not to run into the road and most people watch thier children more.

    And as a side note there have been cases where a child riding bike has hit a car and the parents of the child held responsible for the damage.

  • Steve
    July 01, 2010 - 19:52

    Valid points, but what about those dog haters out there who could take advantage of this law and deliberately hit a dog? Not to say that this is the case here, but it could happen.

    Also, say the driver was acting negligent and instead of a dog it was a young kid. Would the parent then be responsible for damages? Not all the blame can be placed on the dog and owner; I realize laws are in place for a reason, but drivers need to take some responsibility too.

  • Jou
    July 01, 2010 - 19:51

    It don't think it was black and white. The article clearly states that it was a 'yellow labrador'. If the driver was restricted to hitting only 'black and whites' then he should pay the bill when he hits a 'yellow'. Therefore the insurance company is out of order on this one and the driver should settle the bill.