Pet hit by car and died

Hello,
I have a question pertaining to pets vs. car
Is there any thing that someone can do in the loss of a dog when hit by a car and died.

Facts:
Car was speeding
Street was located in a mobile home park
Dog ran into street
People dont think it was there fault

I am sorry to hear of this loss. It is always sad when an innocent animal though no fault of its own is harmed.

However, in the scenario you describe, the dog wasn't killed because the car was speeding. The fact the car was speeding, and the fact the car was traveling through a mobile home park is not relevant to the act of the dog dying.

The primary cause the dog died was because he was in the road. Had the dog been on a leash ( most municipalities have leash laws) or had the dog been contained in the house or in a fenced yard the fact a car was speeding through the mobile home park would be irrelevant.

The person speeding deserves a ticket, obviously---their actions were irresponsible and greater harm could have happened than an animal hit--a child , a baby, or an adult even could be hurt. I don't mean to minimize the loss of a pet, but the speeder should be ticketed because they could have inflicted greater harm in going above the posted speed limit.

I am not sure what legal action you have against the driver of the car because a dog was hit in the street. In fact, he may be able to counter sue or at the every least point out the dog was not restrained according to local laws ( leash laws, park laws, etc) and that could result in your getting a ticket---to add insult to injury.

I am sorry for your loss, but don't know of any legal recourse you may have against someone for hitting a dog that was in the road. Now, had the dog been in the yard and the car ran off the road onto the grass, that would be different. But as it stands, I believe you are out of luck. Wish I could tell you otherwise.

I agree with Grace to a point. Did the driver stop? Did the driver attempt to see to the dog getting help? HOW FAST was the driver going? Are the roads posted for speed limit?

The answer to several of these questions can make a significant difference in how the speeder is seen by the court. But the final responsibility lies with the owner who let this dog out to be in the road.

The poster did not ask how the courts will view the situation. He asked "Is there any thing that someone can do in the loss of a dog when hit by a car and died."

What the court can do and what "someone" (i.e. the dog owner) can do are two different things.

Obviously, if the man was speeding, breaking the law, the courts will handle that if he was cited. The fact the guy was speeding isn't something the owner of the dog can prove since he most likely did not have a radar gun. So, the guy cannot be issued a citation for speeding based on eyewitness testimony. Therefore anything the "court" can do can only be done if the police were called, and the person who hit the dog charged with some offense (such as animal cruelty IF he left the scene without stopping) . I don't see in his question where that was the case.

So, the answer to his question--is there something HE can do ---is no. He cannot TESTIFY to someone speeding--only that the car APPEARED to be going faster than the posted speed limit. However, that isn't what killed the dog. What killed the dog was the fact the dog was UNRESTRAINED ( most certainly a violation of local ordinances) and was in the ROAD. This means while the driver of the car very well may not be cited at all (unless someone had proof he was speeding--eyewitness testimony about speeding isn't proof--it is opinion), but the OWNER of the dog very well may be cited for allowing the dog to be unrestrained.

Based on your answer, name a law the driver of the car could be charged for breaking. Speeding? That cannot be proven--there was no radar gun and eyewitness testimony is not enough to subtantiate speeding. If he stopped (as apparently he did, or the poster would not state "driver thinks it isn't his fault"--a difficult assessment to make if the guy didn't stop and if they had not discussed it) what law could he be charged with breaking? If the poster tries to sue the guy for hitting the dog, the ONLY thing for which there is proof is that the DOG was in the ROAD. There is no proof the guy was speeding.

The answer to "what can someone do about a dog killed in the road" is, largely, nothing---unless the guy didn't stop (which the posters comments indicate that he did) then perhaps he can be charged with animal cruelty. BUT the poster or dog owner doesn't charge him, the police would. The question was what can a someone DO (not what can the court fine him with for failure to stop). The answer is there is very little the dog owner can do expect pay a fine for having the dog unrestrained.


]Which is precisely why I said, "The primary cause the dog died was because he was in the road. I am sorry for your loss, but don't know of any legal recourse you may have against someone for hitting a dog that was in the road."

Alright, Grace, put your mind to this one.

The speeder was speeding on private property. There are no police lurking out there. The only way she will make it to court is to file charges for the loss... as in abuse to a pet.... but that would only fly if there were some way to gauge the speed of his travel.

The court is the only way to get satisfaction from a boorish person who speeds through private, probably 15mph streets... and maiming or killing a pet is not always treated as important as if he had done the same to a 3 year old child... but it is just about the same feeling from the owner/parent. There should be a way to stop people who ignore posted speed limits in densely populated areas. And it should hurt as much as they hurt the residents.

The reason for such low speed limits is that there is very little opportunity to prevent children and pets from darting out into traffic... and the screwball who keeps on driving at highway speeds in such a densely populated and posted area should be prosecuted for damage and death caused... regardless of the idea that he thought that the fact there was a road meant he could proceed without caution.

Seriously, READ this aloud. Are you VERY sure you even MEANT to say this aloud??

YOUR posting is telling the poster the ONLY WAY she can make it to court.

Yep, ONLY way. ONE WAY----that's it- just like heaven-----one way and that is to ( your words ) "file charges for the loss as in abuse to a pet". "Loss as in abuse of a pet" crime? Wow. Sounds, well...........silly.

Note: It is not 'abuse of a pet'. It is "cruelty to animals" AND--get this---the cruelty to animals was NOT because the car HIT the animal. An animal cruelty charge comes when the driver of the vehicle FAILS TO STOP and attempt to render aid. The HITTING of the dog was not the possible crime---the failure to STOP after hitting the animal is the crime. (in some jurisdictions, there is not even a law that requires you to stop).

We know from the posters comments the driver did stop because the poster says "The driver feels they are not at fault". How would you know this unless the driver expressed this? I am going to guess he stopped to express this , not just shouted out the window as it happened, "Nottttttt myyyyyyyy faultttttttttt" as he FLEW through the trailer park.

Moving right along.......... THEN you so helpfully point out that your idea is a miserable one and totally impossible since ( your words ) "that would ONLY FLY if there were some way to gauge the speed of his travel".

As you already happily pointed out--- there IS no police man there to do this. So, I KNOW that YOU know there is no way to gauge speed. Why then did you even WRITE this?

"Hi, I'm making a point here, listen up--a point about the ONLY way to get this thing to court---THEN I toss in that my ONLY way is NOT possible because, well, we don't know how fast the guy was going."

Did you even mean to say that aloud? Seriously. Why? the second half negates the first. It's a bust.

MY ENTIRE POSTING was about the fact THERE IS NO WAY TO GAUGE THE SPEED. YOU admitted there is no way to gauge speed.

So, what was your point?

YOU DON'T HAVE ONE since (chime in together) THERE IS NO WAY TO GAUGE THE SPEED.

This means your highly touted "ONLY WAY" is, well..............

NO WAY.

Which is precisely what I have said ALL along.

Thank God. I have wondered about this my entire life. "WHY, WHY, WHY do they put those LOW speed limits in residential neighborhoods", I would ask myself as I tried to go to sleep at night. "WHY, why, why must I not race through narrow crowded trailer parks? This makes no sense!!? Who can help me find the answer to my most burning question, WHY CANNOT I SPEED through residental neighborhoods???" I would wail to myself in the darkness of my painful night.

Suddenly----the light has come. * cue angel singing*

You have brought me so much peace--I will no longer worship God--I will worship you, most Enlightened One. I am forever in your debt----Ok, maybe not forever. At least for the next fifteen seconds--I'm ALL yours. ROFL!!

I did dab at the corners of my eyes in all earnestness after reading your soliloquy on speeders in residential neighborhoods. While I give it a 5 for effort, I give it a ZERO for relevance since, as we agreed (albiet you agreed belatedly) there is NO way to GAUGE speed.

This leaves us with the ONLY thing we know----a leash law was violated and sadly, a dog was killed because it was in the road.

I sincerely doubt that you have ever done anything in true earnestness... outside of haranguing fellow posters.

My posting was just to show that I believe there should be some way to make people who speed around private homes in high density pay for their thoughtlessness... PAY ATTENTION ... If it had been a child, no doubt there would have been repercussions. But a dog? NADA.

I think the OP should send them a picture every year on the dog's birthday... and if she had a picture of the dog at the scene, one of those too.

Thanks for (finally) not mixing a lot of irrelevant details into your answer.

I agree. Any time a pet dies is a tragedy. And, ANY time a person speeds is dangerous and completely wrong.

I do find it disingenuous that someone who has GOTTEN speeding tickets is throwing this person, who you have NO PROOF was speeding, under the bus, so to speak. I have never gotten a ticket, gotten OUT of a ticket, nor do I speed. EVER. And believe me it is hard NOT to with that many horses underneath you. It's a choice--one people should be held accountable for. But, if its a good idea for this person to send pictures of a DEAD DOG to someone who hit their dog that WASNT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE ROAD ( a point you steadfastly IGNORE--a VIOLATION OF THE LAW you are bent upon ignoring) then since YOU are a speeder, then YOU should receive picture of the dead animal as well---SPEEDING DIDN'T KILL THE DOG. THE DOG BEING IN THE ROAD killed him.

Also, since there is no PROOF the man was speeding, and since we LIVE in a country where you are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY SENDING someone pictures of DEAD ANIMALS in the mail is most assuredly a violation of the Communications Decency Act--not to mention the federal issues that come into play for using the FEDERAL POSTAL system to harass someone who accidentally ( no proof of a crime) HIT a dog YOU ALLOWED to be in the road.

If you care for the dog that much , care enough to give him what he deserves. SAFETY. Making someone who happened to be driving through the park accountable is vigilante justice---and sending depictions of dead animals through the US postal system will land you in jail so quickly it will hurt your feelings --not to mention your wallet.

Why are you totally IGNORING the fact that the ONLY LAW that can be SHOWN was 100% broken was a violation of the pet leash law. You NEVER mention it--not once. But you want to focus on harassing the driver of the car (who--I hate to keep repeating it) is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty--and since you admitted you cannot PROVE his guilt or liability, then that leaves the only thing you will NOT address---the OWNERS failure to follow the law that requires the pet to be on a leash.

It would be great if the pet were important enough to the owner to PROTECT him and not HAVE a pet in the first place unless his safety can be assured---(i.e. fence, leash, etc.).

Yet, you do not address that at ALL--just recommend the poster harass the driver via mail , by actions that can result in FEDERAL charges being brought against him for harassment.

Bad, bad idea.

Actually, there is a very real component in that the person who killed the dog would get the reminder... I'd do it at least once. More than that would be too much trouble... and the speeder is NOT worth your trouble.

But I wonder if that other poster would understand what it means to have a 3 foot side yard and a dog that can cover 20 feet faster than you can get out the door.... Speeding though the average mobile home park is like driving at highway speeds three feet from your front stoop.

As for whether that person was speeding, just about all of us can tell the difference between 15 mph and 30. Slower than 15 mph would be noticeable too because it is like crawling... but 15 mph isn't much faster. Try it. You'll soon see that almost any adult can detect speeding at that level.

What good is detecting the difference between 15 and 30 mph going to do? WHO said we were debating if the guy was speeding? He very well may have been. WHO KNOWS? What DIFFERENCE does it make? The dog isn't dead because the guy was or was not speeding. The dog is dead because he WAS IN THE ROADDDDDDDD.

PROVING they were GOING 30 instead of 15 is what is necessary.

And, having a dog that runs fast, and a small yard is not fate. It is a choice. If you choose to live in a place that has no yard or a small yard, get a pet that is suitable for the same. The pet deserves it.

In any regard, it doesn't matter how fast the dog can RUN. What matters is what you are STILL AVOIDING : THE OWNER VIOLATED LEASH LAWS BY LETTING THE DOG RUN LOOSE. Still no comment about that?

I didn't expect so.

And, I find it shocking you are telling this poster it is a good idea to violate ANY FEDERAL law--now you think it is OK, as long as it is only ONE violation? Sending a picture of a dead animal that YOU allowed to run into the road is ASKING for criminal charges. Communications Decency Act. Read it for yourself.

YOU keep telling people what YOU would do---yet snarl this forum isn't "all about grace"---and I agree. Why do you then perceive what YOU would do to be a reasonable act? It is not reasonable--in fact, it is illegal.

You are nuttier than a squirrel.