1. Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Dog vs Car = bill to the dog owners

Discussion in 'TRIBE Main Forum' started by Phat Buddha, May 27, 2010.

  1. Phat Buddha

    Phat Buddha TRIBE Member

    Dog killed by car, family billed for the damages - thestar.com

    When Kim Flemming arrived home from work on March 23 and let the dog out, she didn’t know these were the last few moments she would see the family’s beloved yellow Lab alive.

    Twelve-year-old Jake loved to roam the area around the Flemmings’ Leslie St. home in Aurora.

    “Next thing I knew there was a knock on the door and a gentleman said, ‘Do you have a dog? He’s on the road,’ ” Flemming recalled. “This lady had hit him. I got to the road and he was dying. He died in my arms.”

    About two months later, on May 17, Flemming received a bill for $1,732.80 from State Farm Insurance.

    The letter, which included five pages of documentation and three pages of photographs, explained that State Farm had received a claim for damages from the driver.

    “Our investigation into this matter has found you to be 100-per-cent responsible. As such, we are looking to you for reimbursement,” the letter stated.

    The bill included the cost of parts and labour for fixing the bumper, as well as the cost of a rental car.

    “We’ve lost part of our family and now we have to reimburse this insurance company? It brought back the grief for us all,” Flemming said.

    State Farm interviewed the driver, police and other witnesses, said spokesman John Bordignon, adding that Canadian courts have found that the rules of negligence apply in such cases.

    “This is an incredibly unfortunate circumstance, but we’re going by the precedent that we have. We see no negligence on the part of the driver and according to law, we believe the owners were negligent in the sense that they could have made sure their dog wasn’t free on the roadway,” Bordignon said.

    “By law, we have a right to pursue our customer’s interest in this matter in terms of the damage to the vehicle.”

    State Farm has told the Flemmings it can pursue costs through their homeowner liability insurance, rather than through them personally, Bordignon added.

    Asked how a case involving a pet would differ from one involving a pedestrian or cyclist, Bordignon responded: “We look at each case on its individual merits. We have to consider the rights of our customers who incurred damage or injury, but depending on the situation all circumstances are looked at before any decision to subrogate is made.

    “There are many instances where we haven’t pursued subrogation when a pedestrian or cyclist is killed in a motor vehicle accident.”
     
  2. maphi

    maphi TRIBE Member

    Was Michael Bryant driving? He is known to be a dog killer as well as a cyclist killer, plus his use of a car as a weapon seems to be above the law.
     
  3. videotronic

    videotronic TRIBE Member

    someone else using the metal demon to their advantage!!!

    in all seriousness i saw this in the metro this morning. no idea how the dog owners think they have a leg to stand on. according to the metro story, it is illegal for a dog to be off leash, their dog was, it caused damage to a car= they are responsible. end of story.

    yes its sad, but it in no way diminishes their responsibility...
     
  4. acheron

    acheron TRIBE Member

    As a dog owner I feel for them for losing their companion but wtf letting your dog roam the neighbourhood in these litigious times...
     
  5. Dirty Girl

    Dirty Girl TRIBE Member

    [​IMG]
    judge judy sides with the plaintiff
     
  6. AdamAnt

    AdamAnt TRIBE Member

    Dog owners should send the drivers an invoice for the 'disposal' of the body.
     
  7. mingster

    mingster TRIBE Member

    she let the dog out to roam the area around the home? among children and other animals and people who are afraid of dogs, and worst of all, moving vehicles.

    she's a stupid, stupid woman. it's really horrible that her dog died, but what an irresponsible twithead.
     
  8. Wiseman

    Wiseman TRIBE Member


    huh? the death of the dog was the result of negiligence of the dog owner. Disposal of the body is also their responsibility.
     
  9. acheron

    acheron TRIBE Member

    It's been a long time, I mean a long time since I've seen dogs moseying around the city unattended by their owners. It's simply too risky now. I really don't understand how an urban dog owner can even consider just 'letting the dog out' (like they would their cat)...

    When I was a kid in the seventies our neighbours had a beagle named "Ace" who was freeroam and more or less patrolled a two block area around our street. He had a regular route and most residents recognized him. He was pretty quiet, only howled at the moon every now and then but otherwise didn't rock the boat. Even waited at crosswalks. As far as I know he only came in for food and a chin rub occasionally. Otherwise he was an outdoor dog. But to think of seeing a dog wandering around on its own downtown?
     
  10. LeoGirl

    LeoGirl TRIBE Member

    Not that it matters, but how rural is Aurora? I know plenty of rural folks who let their dogs run on their property (a few acres).
     
  11. coleridge

    coleridge TRIBE Member

    This part of Aurora is not that rural anymore. Leslie Street is busy.

    Sad circumstance but it's her fault. Had her dog bit someone she'd be equally responsible for its actions.
     
  12. SJN

    SJN TRIBE Member

    It's a bit cold, but State Farm is in the right here. Having said that, I'm a bit surprised they'd risk the possible negative press over $1,700.
     
  13. Hi i'm God

    Hi i'm God TRIBE Member

    Poor dog but i'd be sending the bill to them as well.

    This does not deserve to be a story.
     
  14. derek

    derek TRIBE Member

    her statement about the actions of the driver is bs, it's their fault for letting the dog roam free.

    that said, though, from PR perspective State Farm may have been better just eating the cost, as mention above too. Right or wrong there's enough pet lovers out there that will frown at their decsion.
     
  15. PAUZE

    PAUZE TRIBE Promoter


    this.
     
  16. Dirty Girl

    Dirty Girl TRIBE Member

    [​IMG]
    you killed me!!! but its ok cause i was 12 yrs old and the arthritis was really starting to hurt and I was on my last legs anyway.
     
  17. Dirty Girl

    Dirty Girl TRIBE Member

    right or wrong there are enough pet lovers out there that now know they need to keep a closer eye on their pets.
     
  18. derek

    derek TRIBE Member

    oh, i don't disagree. i'm speaking strictly from an image perspective. state farm could now end up spending way more the $1700.00 justifying their decision. seems like a poor business decsion.
     
  19. Hi i'm God

    Hi i'm God TRIBE Member

    Only because someone mistakenly thought this was news.
     
  20. Wiseman

    Wiseman TRIBE Member

    But if they set a precident then they would end up spending way more in the long run.
     
  21. videotronic

    videotronic TRIBE Member

    you mean saving more in the long run?
     
  22. mingster

    mingster TRIBE Member

    i'm still pissed at the level of irresponsibility of this dog owner for letting her dog run around the streets, unleashed, and unsupervised.

    i need this 'story' to go away.
     
  23. SJN

    SJN TRIBE Member

    I'm not sure that an internal company decision not to subrogate a specific claim would set a future precendent that would stand up in court.
     
  24. derek

    derek TRIBE Member

    i'm not expert, but i'm not sure how the public would be aware if they didn't send a bill to the family, so i'm not certain whom would be viewing them setting a precident by not invoicing the culprit, whereas now it's news. in fact, the family wouldn't have even thought anythingn further of it, and are surprised at being billed, even though they deserve it.

    i'm merely looking at the optics of it. i've seen larger amounts written off at the bank where they could have gone after the client, but due to the circumsntances chose to write-off, rather than risk having to defend their image.

    i'd bet the influx of calls into their call centre alone from angry pet owners (clueless at that) has cost them more than $1700.00.

    perhaps, they've had similar incidents recently and are drawing the line. who knows?
     
  25. Musical Rush

    Musical Rush TRIBE Member

    I'm sure everybody has been waiting for my point of view on this.

    They should make her pay the bill, then somebody run over her dumb ass. There's a family up the street from me who owns a 16 year old dog and they just her run around free. The thing has almost been hit 7 times since I've been living in this area. I haven't seen the dog lately so maybe it's finally dead, the thing could barley walk , and here it is walking around pissing and shitting on everybody's lawn but it's own.

    They have a new pup so maybe it'll be her turn to piss everybody off next.
     

Share This Page