Dog hit by a car

[quadracing]

What is the name of your state? Wisconsin

My dog was in my yard being controlled by an invisible fence when someone came in my driveway and accidently hit my dog. The dog lived but there is a significant amount of vet bills. Is the person driving this car or their insurance responsible for the vet bills?What is the name of your state?

 

[justalayman]

insurance comapanies are never responsible for damages. They are responsible for their clients financial liabilities.

Nobody freom the insurance company hit your dog, did they? Then why would the be liable?

 

[quadracing]

Sorry for not being specific enough. Would the driver of the vehicle be finacially liable or would the insurance company be liable for their client's finacially liablity? If I didn't state the question exactly correct, I think that you are smart enough to understand the just of my quesiton.

 

[justalayman]

Sorry for not being specific enough. Would the driver of the vehicle be finacially liable or would the insurance company be liable for their client's finacially liablity? If I didn't state the question exactly correct, I think that you are smart enough to understand the just of my quesiton.

I answered your question with my first answer. I would think you were smart enough to understand that.

but since you did not figure it out;

if you were to sue somebody, you would sue the driver. Whether the person has insurance or not is not relevent. The insurance company is contracted to the driver to pay for whatever they agreed upon. It makes no difference what the drivers contract with the insurance company is.

The driver is the only one with any liability to you in this situation.

 

[Zigner]

I'm not sure I understand the original question (ok, I know who'd get sued and all that).
My confusion lies in the following:
Was the dog behind the "invisible fence" when it got hit?
Not that it really matters. You did not maintain control of your dog (it wasn't on a leash and it wasn't fenced in). I don't think the driver is at all responsible for this - you should maintain control of your dog in such a way that it can't GET hit by a car.
The only thing that would change my answer would be if the car drove off the driveway and on to your lawn to hit the dog.

 

[justalayman]

I disagree with you Zigner. The dog was confined and on the OP's property (as I read it). The driver came onto the property and hit the dog. The dog does not have to be restricted to a particular portion of ones yard to be considered to be on the owners property.

The dog was controlled as it was on the owners property. Unless there is a statute in OPs state or area that states, specifiaclly, a leash or fence must be utilized to control a dog on private property, the owner had no duty to use such devices and had no duty at all to limit the dog to an area other than the driveway.

The driver failed to use enough caution to avoid hitting the dog, therefore, liability; driver.

Now there are things that may change the liability but, as posted, there is no reason to believe any of them need to be considered.

Once you enter anothers property, things change.

 

[Zigner]

If the dog was on the driveway, then it was NOT safely contained. The driveway is for cars, not dogs...

 

[justalayman]

Not so. The driveway is simply part of the owners property. Unless you have a cite, I know of no laws that restrict a dog from being on a driveway.

Now it may not be all that smart to allow it but the law does not delineate the driveway from the rest of the proeprty.

 

[Zigner]

Not so. The driveway is simply part of the owners property. Unless you have a cite, I know of no laws that restrict a dog from being on a driveway.

Now it may not be all that smart to allow it but the law does not delineate the driveway from the rest of the proeprty.

Find one that prohibits a car from being on a driveway, then I'll dig in to find that that prohibits a dog from being on a driveway.
Now, we can both see the futility of that line of thinking. The point is that the driveway IS a valid place for a dog to be. It is ALSO a valid place for a car to be.

With that said, we don't know from the OP if the dog suddenly darted in front of the car, or if it was laying there in the summer sun.

Also, we can't ascertain whether there are any applicable leash laws that have been violated without knowing what city/county our OP is in.

So, I will step back a little and say that, I don't believe it's automatically the driver's fault in this case, but we do need more information.

 

[justalayman]

sounds like an idea worth pursuing.

 

[quadracing]

Clarifications

Live in Wisconsin. Dog was in fenced in yard (electronic), driveway goes through the fenced area. Driver of the vehicle contacted their insurance company for a possible claim. The insurance company stated that in Wisconsin that the dog owner was responsible in these types of situations. Don't want to waste my time and pursue futher if this is true.

 

[xylene]

While the fence MIGHT keep a dog in... it isn't keeping anyone out...

 

[fairisfair]

I am just curious. Who hit the dog, and why were they in your driveway?

 

[fairisfair]

I disagree with you Zigner. The dog was confined and on the OP's property (as I read it). The driver came onto the property and hit the dog. The dog does not have to be restricted to a particular portion of ones yard to be considered to be on the owners property.

The dog was controlled as it was on the owners property. Unless there is a statute in OPs state or area that states, specifiaclly, a leash or fence must be utilized to control a dog on private property, the owner had no duty to use such devices and had no duty at all to limit the dog to an area other than the driveway.

The driver failed to use enough caution to avoid hitting the dog, therefore, liability; driver.

Now there are things that may change the liability but, as posted, there is no reason to believe any of them need to be considered.

Once you enter anothers property, things change.

Agreed. According to what I found Wisconsin (state law) considers a dog to be "at large" only when it is "off the property of its owner, and not in control of the owner or of some other person". The fact that the dog was on the property of the owner, would in effect be in accordance with the Wisconsin state leash law.

 

[Zigner]

Agreed. According to what I found Wisconsin (state law) considers a dog to be "at large" only when it is "off the property of its owner, and not in control of the owner or of some other person". The fact that the dog was on the property of the owner, would in effect be in accordance with the Wisconsin state leash law.

Look, our OP has not told us what the driver of the car did that was negligent. Merely driving up a driveway does not automatically make one negligent. If the dog darted in front of the car, then how would the driver be negligent? Had the dog been properly secured, this would not have happened.
Unfortunately, the OP has not posted exactly how this happened. If the dog was laying in the driveway and the driver of the car just didn't see it, that's one thing. But if the driver of the car had a clear path and the dog ran in front of him, then it's an entirely different matter.