TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
totallygeeked -> totallygeeked general -> Dog owners not liable for bike collisions
Post Info TOPIC: Dog owners not liable for bike collisions
Should dog owners be liable ? [8 vote(s)]

yes
62.5%
no
12.5%
depends
12.5%
other
12.5%
ed11563


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Dog owners not liable for bike collisions
Permalink  
 

 

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/spin-cycle/court-dog-owners-not-liable-for-bike-collisions-1.10523778 Reprints

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, use the Reprints tool at the top of any article or order a reprint of this article now.

Court: Dog owners not liable for bike collisions

June 9, 2015 by YANCEY ROY / yancey.roy@newsday.com

New York's top court ruled Tuesday, June 9,

New York's top court ruled Tuesday that dog owners aren't liable for their pets running onto roads and colliding with bicyclists.

Unless their dogs previously had shown a proclivity to interfere with traffic, owners cannot be held responsible for a hound-bike collision, the Court of Appeals ruled in two cases, one set in Central Park in Manhattan and the other in rural Cattaraugus County. The court said previous rulings that held owners responsible for farm animals straying onto roadways can't be applied to household pets.

"New York society has had no reasonable expectation that all domestic pets will be perpetually confined in their homes or physically restrained at all times," Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam wrote as part of the majority in the two cases decided Tuesday. "The average New Yorker knows or ought to know that he or she will encounter insufficiently restrained pets, which are not confined to the owner's premises and may harm others depending on the disposition of the pet and the degree of training it has received."

 

One case centered on a 2009 accident in which Wolfgang Doerr was toppled while riding on the Central Park loop. According to court documents, dog owner Julie Smith called her dog from the other side of the road and the pet, when crossing, slammed into the bicyclist. Doerr fell to the pavement, injuring his face. In a 4-3 vote, the court sided with Smith and dismissed Doerr's lawsuit.

Abdus-Salaam said it didn't matter that Smith called the dog, saying the "inability to predict or control how a dog will interpret, react, and respond to its surroundings is why negligence cannot lie based on the owner's order alone."

In the other case, Cheryl Dobinski and her husband were riding the bikes past the farm of George and Milagros Lockhart in Franklinville in 2012, when the Lockharts' German shepherds ran into the road and collided with Dobinski, causing her to flip over her handle bars and land on her back, according to court documents. The court ruled 5-2 in the Lockharts' favor, dismissing Dobinski's negligence lawsuit.

The dissenting judges said there was "no logical" reason for holding dog owners and farm-animal owners to different standards.

"It is certainly not true, either in Franklinville or Manhattan, that the average citizen expects to encounter unrestrained and unaccompanied dogs, running loose among traffic," Judge Eugene Fahey wrote for the minority, adding that any animal owner should "be subject to liability for harm done by the animal if he or she is negligent in failing to prevent that harm."

< back to article

 



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18703
Date:
Permalink  
 

Doesn't NY have leash laws? This is stupid. There should be a reasonable expectation that animals will be confined or restrained unless in a fenced in designated area, IMO.

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
Mellow Momma


Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

Unless your dogs are in your fenced in yard, on your property, they should be on a leash. Period. And I am a dog owner. I HATE dogs who aren't on a leash. You have no idea how your dog will react in any given situation so protect everyone and leash the dog.

In the OP, the owners should not have called the dogs to cross the street without looking to see if there was any traffic. Again though, the owners should have had the dogs contained to their own property. I totally disagree with the ruling that one should just be expecting pets to run into the road at any time. Thats ridiculous.

__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 
Fort Worth Mom


Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

Status: Offline
Posts: 13089
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:

Doesn't NY have leash laws? This is stupid. There should be a reasonable expectation that animals will be confined or restrained unless in a fenced in designated area, IMO.

I agree.

When Jupiter isn't in the house or back yard, she is on leash, 100% of the time.

We would never give her the chance to knock someone off their bike.no 



__________________

Ohioan by birth, Texan by choice!
Lexxy


My dog name is Sasha, too!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6679
Date:
Permalink  
 

I was wondering about leash laws too. This is ridiculous. Now I also don't think the bicyclists should be awarded huge settlements either.

__________________
Blankie


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2672
Date:
Permalink  
 

"Judge Eugene Fahey wrote for the minority, adding that any animal owner should "be subject to liability for harm done by the animal if he or she is negligent in failing to prevent that harm."

Of course the dog owner is liable. That first judge Sheila Somebody was either on drugs or temporarily insane when she made that ruling. She needs to be put on a leash or put in the dog pound. She doesn't belong on the bench.



__________________

No matter how educated, talented, rich or cool you believe you are,

how you treat people ultimately tells all.

Integrity is everything.
Fort Worth Mom


Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

Status: Offline
Posts: 13089
Date:
Permalink  
 

Blankie wrote:

"Judge Eugene Fahey wrote for the minority, adding that any animal owner should "be subject to liability for harm done by the animal if he or she is negligent in failing to prevent that harm."

Of course the dog owner is liable. That first judge Sheila Somebody was either on drugs or temporarily insane when she made that ruling. She needs to be put on a leash or put in the dog pound. She doesn't belong on the bench.

Let's bite her!furious 



__________________

Ohioan by birth, Texan by choice!
Blankie


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2672
Date:
Permalink  
 

Fort Worth Mom wrote:
Blankie wrote:

"Judge Eugene Fahey wrote for the minority, adding that any animal owner should "be subject to liability for harm done by the animal if he or she is negligent in failing to prevent that harm."

Of course the dog owner is liable. That first judge Sheila Somebody was either on drugs or temporarily insane when she made that ruling. She needs to be put on a leash or put in the dog pound. She doesn't belong on the bench.

Let's bite her!furious 

Yes! And spork her! 



__________________

No matter how educated, talented, rich or cool you believe you are,

how you treat people ultimately tells all.

Integrity is everything.
Fort Worth Mom


Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

Status: Offline
Posts: 13089
Date:
Permalink  
 

Blankie wrote:
Fort Worth Mom wrote:
Blankie wrote:

"Judge Eugene Fahey wrote for the minority, adding that any animal owner should "be subject to liability for harm done by the animal if he or she is negligent in failing to prevent that harm."

Of course the dog owner is liable. That first judge Sheila Somebody was either on drugs or temporarily insane when she made that ruling. She needs to be put on a leash or put in the dog pound. She doesn't belong on the bench.

Let's bite her!furious 

Yes! And spork her! 

I'll let Jupiter knock her off her bike.

See how she likes it!wink 



__________________

Ohioan by birth, Texan by choice!
Blankie


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2672
Date:
Permalink  
 

Fort Worth Mom wrote:
Blankie wrote:
Fort Worth Mom wrote:
Blankie wrote:

"Judge Eugene Fahey wrote for the minority, adding that any animal owner should "be subject to liability for harm done by the animal if he or she is negligent in failing to prevent that harm."

Of course the dog owner is liable. That first judge Sheila Somebody was either on drugs or temporarily insane when she made that ruling. She needs to be put on a leash or put in the dog pound. She doesn't belong on the bench.

Let's bite her!furious 

Yes! And spork her! 

I'll let Jupiter knock her off her bike.

See how she likes it!wink 

Go Jupiter! Get that judge and give her what for. 



__________________

No matter how educated, talented, rich or cool you believe you are,

how you treat people ultimately tells all.

Integrity is everything.
Mellow Momma


Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

I could send Aksel after her but he is likely to bark at her and then lick her face with puppy kisses. Probably not the outcome we are looking for. Lol

__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 
TrudyML


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10458
Date:
Permalink  
 

Himself ran into a running dog, running at him on his Harley. That didn't end well for the dogs owners. Bike was totalled.

__________________
Vette


Owl drink to that!

Status: Offline
Posts: 4799
Date:
Permalink  
 

If there is a leash law why wouldn't the owner be liable? Otherwise what is the point of a leash law in the first place?

__________________

Was it a bad day?

Or was it a bad five minutes that you milked all day?
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
totallygeeked -> totallygeeked general -> Dog owners not liable for bike collisions


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard