Hypothetical Dilemma

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Swerve and hit the owner

This is the correct answer. :beer:

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Excelsior
The 9 who voted for the dog owner should be sterilized.

So someone throwing things in the road / at cars wouldn't be guilty of a crime, in your opinion?

Right, because the owner of the dog threw the dog into the street.

Great logic Gurck. :roll:

 

[olds]

Dog owners fault if there is a leash law

 

[bigredguy]

Originally posted by: Spooner
You are driving down the road and a dog runs out in front of you (owner is present without the dog leashed) - you swerve on instinct causing an accident with another vehicle that results in a death. Should you be charged with manslaughter or is the dog owner liable as it should have been leashed?

I say both, so add it to the poll so i can vote

 

[nageov3t]

your first instinct when you see something jump out into the road is to swerve? :Q

personally, my first instict is to slam on my breaks. worst case scenario, the car in back rear-ends me and they'll be liable for the accident.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Excelsior
The 9 who voted for the dog owner should be sterilized.

So someone throwing things in the road / at cars wouldn't be guilty of a crime, in your opinion?

Right, because the owner of the dog threw the dog into the street.

Great logic Gurck. :roll:

Might as well have since there was no leash. The owner was not in control of the dog, the dog caused the accident, and the owner is resposible for the dog.

What's the difference between sicking a dog on someone, and having it "get loose" when the result is a dead child? Only intent, yet a crime still happened in both examples and the dog's owner would be responsible.

How's it any different here?

 

[imported_LoKe]

It's your fault. You didn't have control of your vehicle.

Had you hit the dog, it wouldn't have been your fault, it would have been the owners fault. But when it gets to the point of ending another life, then it's your fault.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Might as well have since there was no leash. The owner was not in control of the dog, the dog caused the accident, and the owner is resposible for the dog.

What's the difference between sicking a dog on someone, and having it "get loose" when the result is a dead child? Only intent, yet a crime still happened in both examples and the dog's owner would be responsible.

How's it any different here?

If an animal runs out into the street, you are SUPPOSED to keep on going. If you decide to take evasive maneuvers such as swerving out of the way, that's your own fault, and you should be held responsible. The dog owner should be fined for improperly maintaining control of the dog, or not having the dog on a leash at all.

They are two very different situations.

 

[cjgallen]

Everyone involved in the accident is an a$$hole. Dumba$$ dog, dumba$$ dog owner, idiot who swerved, and the other car was probably a biga$$ SUV.

Execute them all.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Excelsior
The 9 who voted for the dog owner should be sterilized.

So someone throwing things in the road / at cars wouldn't be guilty of a crime, in your opinion?

Right, because the owner of the dog threw the dog into the street.

Great logic Gurck. :roll:

Might as well have since there was no leash. The owner was not in control of the dog, the dog caused the accident, and the owner is resposible for the dog.

What's the difference between sicking a dog on someone, and having it "get loose" when the result is a dead child? Only intent, yet a crime still happened in both examples and the dog's owner would be responsible.

How's it any different here?

Wow some of you are insane. THe owner should be punished if there is a leash law, but otherwise, it isn't their fault. The driver should be held responsible for his/her action behind the wheel. Other humans always come first.

Had the driver hit the dog, he wouldn't be punished at all. The dog chose to run out into the street, it got run over, end of story.

However, he/she incorrectly decided to swerve and endanger the life of another motorist because of a relatively insignificant dog.

 

[CptObvious]

Ugh...I'm studying for the bar right now, and this is like a typical crim law question

I'm guessing both the driver and the dog owner could be charged with involuntary manslaughter, but it depends on the circumstances. The person causing the accident had to be grossly negligent to be charged. Based on the question only, with no more facts, I'd guess the driver was merely negligent (not enough to be charged) but the dog owner might have been grossly negligent.

 

[Buk]

The dog owner is guilty of a misdemeanor for violating the leash laws. You, my friend, are going to meet Bubba.............

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Wow some of you are insane. THe owner should be punished if there is a leash law, but otherwise, it isn't their fault. The driver should be held responsible for his/her action behind the wheel. Other humans always come first.

Had the driver hit the dog, he wouldn't be punished at all. The dog chose to run out into the street, it got run over, end of story.

However, he/she incorrectly decided to swerve and endanger the life of another motorist because of a relatively insignificant dog.

Insane? Nah, just realistic. You never had a scary moment on the road, I take it? You can't approach this logically; logic takes time. Whatever you do in that split second is instinctual, though you can of course condition yourself. I threw my master cylinder braking for a deer when I was in the middle lane of a completely empty 3 lane highway one night. I think back & wonder why I didn't go around him... well, that's the answer. If there were other cars, I guess braking would have been the right move, so I don't lose too many points

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Wow some of you are insane. THe owner should be punished if there is a leash law, but otherwise, it isn't their fault. The driver should be held responsible for his/her action behind the wheel. Other humans always come first.

Had the driver hit the dog, he wouldn't be punished at all. The dog chose to run out into the street, it got run over, end of story.

However, he/she incorrectly decided to swerve and endanger the life of another motorist because of a relatively insignificant dog.

Insane? Nah, just realistic. You never had a scary moment on the road, I take it? You can't approach this logically; logic takes time. Whatever you do in that split second is instinctual, though you can of course condition yourself. I threw my master cylinder braking for a deer when I was in the middle lane of a completely empty 3 lane highway one night. I think back & wonder why I didn't go around him... well, that's the answer. If there were other cars, I guess braking would have been the right move, so I don't lose too many points

Not counting deer running out in front of my car a few times, no. And how is it realistic to charge the dog owner with manslaughter? Thats what I thought, it isn't.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Excelsior
The 9 who voted for the dog owner should be sterilized.

So someone throwing things in the road / at cars wouldn't be guilty of a crime, in your opinion?

Right, because the owner of the dog threw the dog into the street.

Great logic Gurck. :roll:

Might as well have since there was no leash. The owner was not in control of the dog, the dog caused the accident, and the owner is resposible for the dog.

What's the difference between sicking a dog on someone, and having it "get loose" when the result is a dead child? Only intent, yet a crime still happened in both examples and the dog's owner would be responsible.

How's it any different here?

Wow some of you are insane. THe owner should be punished if there is a leash law, but otherwise, it isn't their fault. The driver should be held responsible for his/her action behind the wheel. Other humans always come first.

Had the driver hit the dog, he wouldn't be punished at all. The dog chose to run out into the street, it got run over, end of story.

However, he/she incorrectly decided to swerve and endanger the life of another motorist because of a relatively insignificant dog.

Whoa there little doggie!

I said the dog owner was at fault as well because they didn't maintain control of their animal. Leash law or not, you *still* have to maintain control of your animal. Again, see my example above. Does it matter if there is a leash law in that case either? No.

I didn't say the car driver wasn't at fault as well. Yes they needed to maintain control of their vehicle.

Oh, and your wrong. Had the driver not swerved the dog owner would be responsible for the repairs to the vehicle. The dog owner is responsible as well.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
You swerved, you lost control of your vehicle, it's your fault. Always hit the animal.

 

[Hammer]

it was an accident. you won't be charged with manslaughter. you shouldn't swerve though. the dog owner should get a big fine for not having the dog on a leash. extrajudicial punishment is authorized for the dog owner, in the interests of justice.