Hit and run on a dog?

[Nolacopusmc]

Like I said initially, almost always, the responsibility for the dog rests with the owner, especially from a legal standpoint, but I am sure we have all had a dog dart out when a door is opened or something like that.

The OP was about the law. The law clearly states if there is proprty damage and you do not stop....it is illegal.

The hinge point will be if in that particular circumstance, in that area, with that judge, if the dog is ruled as property or not. It almost always is in matters I am aware of in small claims courts, divorce court, and a handful of criminal cases.

I can see a valid concern for being in the 9th ward or something like that for your safety, or a dark road or something, but most of the time, in my opinion, the right thing to do would be to stop and at least make sure the dog is dead.

if it is not.....then what? I mean, it is not like it is a snake.

 

[DramaCritic]

..... as a child I had a dog run smack over and killed right in front of me.

Missed that in the video.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Missed that in the video.

Here we go.

Post #2.....

 

[Andrew50300]

Here we go.

Post #2.....

My money's on its someone's second account just to rile you up a bit (And no its not me. I spend too much time on here with just one account)

 

[Nolacopusmc]

My money's on its someone's second account just to rile you up a bit (And no its not me. I spend too much time on here with just one account)

LOL. Yeah, I have no doubt. It's almost fun now trying to figure out which one of them it is. It really does make me feel good to know I am so important to people that they go through all that trouble. Obviously you have not heard I am kind of a big deal on here. I just feel sorry for those people who that is what they choose to spend their time on.

Damn you RAPTURE for failing me!!!!!! LOL

 

[nastynewt]

Louisiana has a leash law your at fault

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Louisiana has a leash law your at fault

Do you have a link to that? Is it a state law or a local ordinance?

Thanks

As an aside: WHile the above may be true, it will still have no bearing on the potential for a hit and run charge if someone hits a dog and fails to stop. Furthermore, if damage was done to your vehicle, you may be entitled to compensation based on the above.

 

[charlie12]

Stopping in some places and telling that you smashed a cat or dog could cause a human to die.

I ran over a Pitbull a few years ago on a deadend road in Colyell at 3am, and no I didn't stop.

The crazy part is a few months later I saw him he ran out to the road to greet me and not chasing me. We are buddies now and I feed him dog biscuits and he brought a friend too.

 

[SpeedRacer]

I still think there's NO way in hell you could get charged with any crime. The "dog is considered property" argument is a stretch. A lawn chair is property too, if you throw a chair in the road and I hit it, am I legally obligated to stop? And you keep saying the responsibility "almost always" rests with the dog owner. When wouldn't it? If I'm driving down the road, between the lines and under the speed limit how could I possibly be at fault for your failure to control your dog?

You seem to be twisting the law you presented to match your personal opinion. A criminal hit and run assumes some negligence on part of the driver, for instance I swerve off the road and hit your lawn chair. But again, you leave your **** (or let your dog get away) in the road, that's on you. I'd love to see a case to back up your theory.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

FYI...

3:2773. Dogs as personal property; seizure of dogs running at large or on property fenced as a fox pen; notice to owner; dangerous or vicious dogs

A. Dogs owned by citizens of this state and by citizens of other states and situated and located in this state are declared to be personal property of such citizens.

B. Any citizen may, or the sheriff, constable, or other police officers of any parish, ward, or municipality shall seize any dog found unaccompanied by its owner or keeper and running at large on any road, street, or other public place, or trespassing on any premises other than the premises of the owner. If the dog is wearing a collar bearing a tag showing the name and address of its owner, it shall be impounded and the citizen or officer so seizing and impounding the dog shall immediately thereafter by written notice notify the owner of the dog, at the address disclosed by the tag on the dog's collar, that the dog has been seized and impounded by him, and unless the owner or keeper of the dog shall, within seven days from the receipt of the notice, claim the dog and pay the citizen or officer a fee of one dollar for seizing and a fee of twenty-five cents for each day it is impounded, it shall be disposed of in a humane manner.

C. Except in the parishes of St. Helena, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, and Washington, any citizen may, or the sheriff, constable, or other police officers of any parish, ward, or municipality shall, seize any dog found unaccompanied by its owner or keeper and trespassing on any premises that is fenced with at least a two-inch by four-inch wire mesh that is a minimum of four feet high. If the dog is wearing a collar bearing a tag showing the name and address of its owner, it shall be impounded and the citizen or officer so seizing and impounding the dog shall immediately thereafter, by written notice, notify the owner of the dog, at the address disclosed by the tag on the collar of the dog, that the dog has been seized and impounded by him, and unless the owner or keeper of the dog shall, within seven days from receipt of the notice, claim the dog and pay a seizing fee of twenty dollars and an impoundment fee of one dollar for each day it is impounded, it shall be disposed of in a humane manner. Ten dollars of the seizing fee shall be paid to the law enforcement agency called upon to seize the dog. The remainder of the seizing fee shall be donated to a recognized nonprofit conservation group. This Subsection shall apply only to fox pens.

D. Any citizen or officer may kill any dangerous or vicious dog, and no citizen or officer shall be liable for damages or to prosecution by reason of killing any dangerous or vicious dog.

Amended by Acts 1950, No. 231, §1; Acts 1992, No. 1131, §1.

Is this the "leash law?" Looks like it would apply.

3:2771. Dogs not to run at large

No person shall suffer or permit any dog in his possession, or kept by him about his premises, to run at large on any unenclosed land, or trespass upon any enclosed or unenclosed lands of another.

 

[swagge1]

I think your previous behavior is repulsive, and your whole logic about not stopping for fear of retaliation is laughable. Accidents happen. My dog has a mind of its own. It runds out, I will be upset, but **** happens. However, you run away like a heartless coward, and I will exhaust every legal means to make you pay for your lack of decency.
§100. Hit-and-run driving

I would like to see that argument hold up in court that I damaged your property and am somehow liable for the withdrawal from your emotional bank account. I agree with Pangris. What legal precedent has been set arguing that ones pet is considered property and therefore is treated as such in legal matters?

Here is how I see this scenario playing out since you feel that I am "morally obligated" to stop.

You take me to court and testify that your "property" was in the road illegally (leash law) causing damage to my property and I did not stop. I also testify that I struck a dog (presumably yours) in the road and did not stop. I am also now suffering from mental distress as I was too distraught to stop and now have constant nightmares about hitting dogs and fear of owner retribution. I have a receipt for body damage to my vehicle as well as pictures.

The BEST outcome I can see for you is that the judge, or jury drops the case.


Please save your self righteous, morally superior judgement lectures for someone else. Your opinion of me and others who would not stop is irrelevant.

 

[DramaCritic]

Actualy a freind to me sent a video that he indicate was funny. When I say that it not to me seem all that hilarous, he tell me to visit here and look for a 'expert".

After I now am visiting the site I could narowed choices down to two or 3 people. And video make more sense now to me

 

[SpeedRacer]

D. Any citizen or officer may kill any dangerous or vicious dog, and no citizen or officer shall be liable for damages or to prosecution by reason of killing any dangerous or vicious dog.

Dog in road = dangerous.

 

[Hitman]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnThqlH3fQk[/ame]

 

[swagge1]

Should've gotten him to pay to fix your car.

After it happened I pulled over down the road to check the damage and the only thing I saw was a scrape on the bumper that looked like dogs teeth and jawbone along with a busted fog light. I did check under the truck to see if the traction bar on the rear leaf spring had impaled the dog giving me an instant 3nd passenger and possibly making me eligible as a high occupancy vehicle in Texas. I think I bought those traction bars from you Spanky.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I still think there's NO way in hell you could get charged with any crime. The "dog is considered property" argument is a stretch. A lawn chair is property too, if you throw a chair in the road and I hit it, am I legally obligated to stop? And you keep saying the responsibility "almost always" rests with the dog owner. When wouldn't it? If I'm driving down the road, between the lines and under the speed limit how could I possibly be at fault for your failure to control your dog?

You seem to be twisting the law you presented to match your personal opinion. A criminal hit and run assumes some negligence on part of the driver, for instance I swerve off the road and hit your lawn chair. But again, you leave your **** (or let your dog get away) in the road, that's on you. I'd love to see a case to back up your theory.

FIrst off, I am not twisting anything. I posted the law verbatim. Nowhere is there anything about negligence in hit and run charge. read the law if you think I am twisting that. It is the first one I posted. Secondly, I just posted the law specifically saying that a dog is considered property...again, no twisting.

Just because you do not like it, does not make it less accurate. The OP gave a very specific example of a guy sitting on his porch and watching what we will assume for the sake of the example, his pet being run over. there are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.....

#1- Whose fault is it that the dog got run over? I think most have agreed, including myself, if the dog was running free, it is the dog's fault which translates to the onwer's fault.

#2- Does failure to stop constitute a crime?- Looking at 14:100, YES, it is a crime. Does that mean you will necessarily be charged with it? Maybe, maybe not. If when the cops come knocking at your door, you can explain a good reason, like the guy was sitting on his porch with a shotgun then probably not. However, if he calls the cops, crying about his dog, and gives them your plate, and you have little Fido's brain matter on your front bumper....Yeah, you might be arrested.

There is a difference between hitting a dog and saying "F-ck it" and driving on, and hitting a dog and not stopping right there because of some articulable fear. If nothing else, have the common courtesy to call 911 so they can come either help the dog or dispatch it instead of letting it suffer on the side of the road.

Is it common? No, probably not. IS it possible? Yeah, it is definitely possible. I think it is much more possible in the OP when it is pretty clear it was a pet and you ran. WHen the cops are called and you admit to it (because we all know none here would lie), depending on how that cop sees it, you might get a summons or a ride.

Whose dog was it? That will also play a role. WHo is the judge hearing the case? This is no different than all the other what-ifs we hear.

It is a misdemeanor charge in this case and at best, it would be a fine. I do not twist ****. I present the law and if I have experienced it or something similar, I offer my opinion on how i think it would go. Until it happens, it is all speculation and relatively educated assumptions.


For the record, in your lawn chair incident, if someone literally through it at you, then I agree stopping would probably not be a smart move giving the violent/insane actins of the incident. However, I would not just forget it either. Even if I did not have damage, I would report it due to the circumstances and to cover myself from the retard calling and claiming I swerved and ran over his grandmama's lawm chair she gave him 3 christmas ago.

 

[Tulse Luper]

A I did check under the truck to see if the traction bar on the rear leaf spring had impaled the dog giving me an instant 3nd passenger and possibly making me eligible as a high occupancy vehicle in Texas.

When life gives you lemons...........

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I would like to see that argument hold up in court that I damaged your property and am somehow liable for the withdrawal from your emotional bank account. I agree with Pangris. What legal precedent has been set arguing that ones pet is considered property and therefore is treated as such in legal matters?

Here is how I see this scenario playing out since you feel that I am "morally obligated" to stop.

You take me to court and testify that your "property" was in the road illegally (leash law) causing damage to my property and I did not stop. I also testify that I struck a dog (presumably yours) in the road and did not stop. I am also now suffering from mental distress as I was too distraught to stop and now have constant nightmares about hitting dogs and fear of owner retribution. I have a receipt for body damage to my vehicle as well as pictures.

The BEST outcome I can see for you is that the judge, or jury drops the case.


Please save your self righteous, morally superior judgement lectures for someone else. Your opinion of me and others who would not stop is irrelevant.

None of that has anything to do with 14:100.

It does not matter who is at fault for the accident. Failure to stop constitutes a crime. It is the same thing for people who have had their illegally parked cars hit. It is still a hit and run, and when the suspect is found, they are charged.

ROughly the same thing as a dog not belonging in the road. I agree, but that has nothing to do with when you hit it, failing to stop.

Also, just because there is not a citable precedent case, does not mean that there is not a previous case or that there will not be a case in the future. Especially when one knows how a citable case comes to be. Screaming "show me a case" is not an airtight conclusion. Just saying. There could be 100 cases exactly like I am describing, and unless certain things occur, we will never know about it.

The law is posted plainly for all to see. Draw your own conclusions and use them accordingly on your next dog killing spree.

 

[SpeedRacer]

FIrst off, I am not twisting anything. I posted the law verbatim. Nowhere is there anything about negligence in hit and run charge. read the law if you think I am twisting that. It is the first one I posted. Secondly, I just posted the law specifically saying that a dog is considered property...again, no twisting.

Just because you do not like it, does not make it less accurate. The OP gave a very specific example of a guy sitting on his porch and watching what we will assume for the sake of the example, his pet being run over. there are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.....

#1- Whose fault is it that the dog got run over? I think most have agreed, including myself, if the dog was running free, it is the dog's fault which translates to the onwer's fault.

#2- Does failure to stop constitute a crime?- Looking at 14:100, YES, it is a crime. Does that mean you will necessarily be charged with it? Maybe, maybe not. If when the cops come knocking at your door, you can explain a good reason, like the guy was sitting on his porch with a shotgun then probably not. However, if he calls the cops, crying about his dog, and gives them your plate, and you have little Fido's brain matter on your front bumper....Yeah, you might be arrested.

There is a difference between hitting a dog and saying "F-ck it" and driving on, and hitting a dog and not stopping right there because of some articulable fear. If nothing else, have the common courtesy to call 911 so they can come either help the dog or dispatch it instead of letting it suffer on the side of the road.

Is it common? No, probably not. IS it possible? Yeah, it is definitely possible. I think it is much more possible in the OP when it is pretty clear it was a pet and you ran. WHen the cops are called and you admit to it (because we all know none here would lie), depending on how that cop sees it, you might get a summons or a ride.

Whose dog was it? That will also play a role. WHo is the judge hearing the case? This is no different than all the other what-ifs we hear.

It is a misdemeanor charge in this case and at best, it would be a fine. I do not twist ****. I present the law and if I have experienced it or something similar, I offer my opinion on how i think it would go. Until it happens, it is all speculation and relatively educated assumptions.


For the record, in your lawn chair incident, if someone literally through it at you, then I agree stopping would probably not be a smart move giving the violent/insane actins of the incident. However, I would not just forget it either. Even if I did not have damage, I would report it due to the circumstances and to cover myself from the retard calling and claiming I swerved and ran over his grandmama's lawm chair she gave him 3 christmas ago.

The leap you make between reading the law and what you personally feel SHOULD happen as a result is a stretch at best.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

The leap you make between reading the law and what you personally feel SHOULD COULD happen as a result is a stretch at best.

A lot of you miss that. WHen I say, "If it was me..." that is when I am saying what in my opinion should happen, and that is most likely based on personal experience of having done it prior or something similar, even if I may not specifically say that for purposes contained within the 5th amendment. Otherwise I am giving possible, and sometimes probable, outcomes, based on my experience and education.

Your milage may and most likely does vary.

ETA- I still do not see how you consider it a stretch when the law CLEARLY says if you cause property damage and do not stop it is a crime. I even gave you the law specifically stating a dog is property...yet I am stretching it? Come on.