Dog ran in front of cyclists from home

[Frauswan]

What is the name of your state?

 

[Frauswan]

What is the name of your state?

I'm in Monongalia County, WV, the property where this happened is in Greene County, PA. The home owner is also in Monongalia County.
Four of us were riding bikes, a dog bolted from it's home and ran onto the street in front of us. Two of us were affected. My husband ran into the back of me and my bike had about $600 damage. I had some cuts and bruises.
Another question: do I submit small claim in Monongalia County, WV or Greene County PA?
Thanks!

 

[justalayman]

Did anybody actually hit the dog?

How was it that your husband ran into you?

 

[Frauswan]

We were riding single file, for of us. Dog ran out in front of first in line. He braked to avoid dog. Second person swerved left, I was in third, I served further left to avoid second cyclist (basically a Domino effect) and by the time the Domino effect reached my husband, we had all slowed down and he had nowhere to go but to run into the last rider (me).
Also of note, the dog owner said he doesn't want to submit claim to homeowners because he'll lose the dog or lose home owners insurance. Seemed to have previous experience with this dog.

 

[quincy]

You can file a small claims action in either county - the county where the accident occurred (in Pennsylvania) or the county where the dog owner (and you) reside (in West Virginia).

Monongalia seems to me to make the most sense as you both reside there.

 

[justalayman]

We were riding single file, for of us. Dog ran out in front of first in line. He braked to avoid dog. Second person swerved left, I was in third, I served further left to avoid second cyclist (basically a Domino effect) and by the time the Domino effect reached my husband, we had all slowed down and he had nowhere to go but to run into the last rider (me).
Also of note, the dog owner said he doesn't want to submit claim to homeowners because he'll lose the dog or lose home owners insurance. Seemed to have previous experience with this dog.

So you were following too closely to be able to adequately respond to the possibility of conditions changing in front of you. In a motor vehicle accident you would be ticketed for your actions. I see no reason you wouldn’t be held to the same standard here.

 

[Frauswan]

So you were following too closely to be able to adequately respond to the possibility of conditions changing in front of you. In a motor vehicle accident you would be ticketed for your actions. I see no reason you wouldn’t be held to the same standard here.

Thanks for your perspective.

 

[Frauswan]

You can file a small claims action in either county - the county where the accident occurred (in Pennsylvania) or the county where the dog owner (and you) reside (in West Virginia).

Monongalia seems to me to make the most sense as you both reside there.

Thank you!

 

[NeilTheCop]

Looks like the law is on your side.
§19-20-13. Dog running at large; liability of owner.
Any owner or keeper of any dog who permits such dog to run at large shall be liable for any damages inflicted upon the person or property of another by such dog while so running at large.
Check that the owner has a dog license and has paid the dog tax.
Seems the State has had a real dog problem in the past for so many dog related laws.
http://www.wvlegislature.gov/wvcode/ChapterEntire.cfm?chap=19&art=20

 

[quincy]

So you were following too closely to be able to adequately respond to the possibility of conditions changing in front of you. In a motor vehicle accident you would be ticketed for your actions. I see no reason you wouldn’t be held to the same standard here.

The dog laws in both Pennsylvania and in West Virginia require dogs are leashed or under the control of the dog owner, with the owner of the dog at large liable for all damages.

Pennsylvania law applies as the accident occurred in Pennsylvania - but the "at large" dog law in West Virginia is similar to the Pennsylvania law.

 

[justalayman]

- but the "at large" dog law in West Virginia is similar to the West Virginia law.

well, I surely hope so.


I still am not convinced. The person directly affected by the dog was able to avoid hitting the dog or being damaged. The injury was the result of a following bicyclist failing to stop before hitting the person in front of them. Bicyclists are generally obligated with following the rules of the road applied to motor vehicles, for the most part.

While the dog was the cause of the first riders actions, it was the followers failure to stop before hitting another that appears to be the actual cause of the injuries.


Additionally we don’t know why the dog was loose. While unlikely to be the case, if the dog was released by a person other than the owner, the owner of the dog may have absolutely no liability.

I’m curious though. Was this in a street that separates the two states? Given the dog was loose and the owner lives in West Virginia and the incident happened in Pennsylvania, how was it a dog that lives in West Virginia was involved in an incident in PA?

 

[quincy]

well, I surely hope so.


I still am not convinced. The person directly affected by the dog was able to avoid hitting the dog or being damaged. The injury was the result of a following bicyclist failing to stop before hitting the person in front of them. Bicyclists are generally obligated with following the rules of the road applied to motor vehicles, for the most part.

While the dog was the cause of the first riders actions, it was the followers failure to stop before hitting another that appears to be the actual cause of the injuries.

Haha. I caught my error and edited my post.

Pennsylvania is a no-fault state when it comes to car accidents whereas West Virginia law is a modified comparative fault.

I believe because the accident occurred in Pennsylvania, the dog at large law will be the determining factor in an award of damages. There would have been no accident had the dog owner been in control of the dog, as required by law.

That said, I understand the point you are making.

edit to comment on your last question: Vacation property?

 

[adjusterjack]

I still am not convinced. The person directly affected by the dog was able to avoid hitting the dog or being damaged. The injury was the result of a following bicyclist failing to stop before hitting the person in front of them. Bicyclists are generally obligated with following the rules of the road applied to motor vehicles, for the most part.

While the dog was the cause of the first riders actions, it was the followers failure to stop before hitting another that appears to be the actual cause of the injuries.

I agree with that analysis. I don't see the dog being the cause of the accident.

There would have been no accident had the dog owner been in control of the dog,

Using a car accident for comparison. Car A brakes suddenly. Car B brakes and avoids rear-ending Car A. Car C rear-ends Car B. There would have been no accident if Car A hadn't have braked suddenly, yet car A didn't cause the accident. The negligent driver of Car C caused the accident by hitting Car B.

No-fault has to do with whose insurance pays, not as to who caused the accident.

The dog owner could be cited for letting his dog run loose but the dog didn't cause the bike riders to run into each other, their own negligence did.

 

[quincy]

I agree with that analysis. I don't see the dog being the cause of the accident.



Using a car accident for comparison. Car A brakes suddenly. Car B brakes and avoids rear-ending Car A. Car C rear-ends Car B. There would have been no accident if Car A hadn't have braked suddenly, yet car A didn't cause the accident. The negligent driver of Car C caused the accident by hitting Car B.

No-fault has to do with whose insurance pays, not as to who caused the accident.

The dog owner could be cited for letting his dog run loose but the dog didn't cause the bike riders to run into each other, their own negligence did.

I understand both the point you are making and the point justalayman made earlier. I think that this point is one that will be made by the dog owner to defend against the small claims suit. But for the bikers following each other too closely, there would have been no collision.

That said, I still believe the dog law is clear that the dog owner is liable for any and all damages caused by the dog being at large. The proximate cause of the accident was the dog, whose presence in the road led to the damages that followed. But for the dog being in the road, there would not have been a problem with the bikers riding too closely behind each other.

I don't know which side has the better argument. You and justalayman could be correct with your analysis.

 

[justalayman]

I understand both the point you are making and the point justalayman made earlier. I think that this point is one that will be made by the dog owner to defend against the small claims suit. But for the bikers following each other too closely, there would have been no collision.

That said, I still believe the dog law is clear that the dog owner is liable for any and all damages caused by the dog being at large. The proximate cause of the accident was the dog, whose presence in the road led to the damages that followed. But for the dog being in the road, there would not have been a problem with the bikers riding too closely behind each other.

I don't know which side has the better argument. You and justalayman could be correct with your analysis.

But not for the negligent riding of the person following there would have been no damages


In the situation at hand, we actually have two separate events although very closely related in time.

Incident #1.
The dog running into the road.
There was no damage caused by the dog interaction.

Incident #2.
The collision between the two riders.
The damaged listed is due to this collision.


The dog didn’t cause the collision. The negligent operation by the following rider is what caused the damage.



Let me expand the situstion s bit and see if it changes your mind.


Dog runs into the road. Rider stops but falls over. There is no collision and no damage.

1 minute later a second rider comes onto the scene and hits the rider still sitting in the roadway trying who is trying to calm himself.

I’m sure you’ll agree the dog is not at fault for the secondary collision. Now shorten the time to 30 seconds.. Dog still not st fault, correct? Now 5 seconds? 2 seconds?


At what point do you want to place the negligent actions of a third party onto the dog incident?
While you want to argue if not for the dog the damage to the bike and op wouldn’t have occurred I’ll make the argument that if not for the negligent actions of the following rider there would have been no damages regardless of the dog incident.

I think contributory or comparative negligence may have a place here but I don’t see it as an absolute placing all fault on the dog owner.