6 ms·

The thing Wag screwed up was its total lack of empathy in trying to buy silence. > a couple thousand maximum Maximum? Many pups cost more than this and you'd

The thing Wag screwed up was its total lack of empathy in trying to buy silence. > a couple thousand maximum Maximum? Many pups cost more than this and you'd be paying to replace at least. You might also be paying for any amount of vet bills if the animal isn't killed on the spot. If you hit a service or working dog, be ready to shell out tens of thousands for replacement due to the unique tasks performed (not all dogs can do them) and specialized training they receive. In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver. Of course, I don't like the idea of a stranger walking my dog anyway. Even a kennel isn't ideal, but at least then I can build trust with a particular business. Wag just puts my dog in the hands of random people I'll probably never see again, opening me up to liability and my dog up to risk.

landryraccoon 8y ago
I’d be more sympathetic to Wag if they made it possible for the pet owner to pursue the drivers. As it stands, it sounds like they have not provided enough details to identify the walker, let alone investigate the driver (if there even was one). So I’d say Wag is just as culpable as a maybe-existing-driver.
mcorning 8y ago
No matter, this incident in particular is still a drop in the bucket for Wag. Wag knew the dog was dead. All they needed to do in order to look good was pay for the cremation, maybe the cost of the dog, and be supportive. Instead the did the opposite and came off looking greedy, dismissive, and insensitive.
kdf83 8y ago
"In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver." Have you considered the dog was at fault? I mean unless the leash is incredible short it would be pretty easy to jump into an oncoming car if pavement is small. Playing devil advocate here but since we've considered Wag, the walker and driver surely we can consider the animal at fault too unless the lease was 20cms and dog was practically being dragged
- mrob 8y ago
  A dog is an animal. It has no moral responsibility. If a dog does something wrong the fault lies with the person in charge who failed to control it. A professional dog walker should be aware of traffic and anticipate how the dog might react.
  - jasonbarrah 8y ago
    "Professional" dog walker. I was thinking about this the other day while my Lyft driver took two wrong turns while extolling the virtues of socialism. Professional drivers used to be professional drivers. 'Professional' in the gig economy just means they have a smart phone and someones social security number.
    - kingofpandora 8y ago
      Let me preface this by saying I've never paid for a Lyft or Uber in my life and probably never will. However, what you just described sounds like a typical taxi ride as well, i.e. with a professional driver.
      - benatkin 8y ago
        It still means that with black cabs in London, but it's true that the concept of a professional driver was already lacking in most places before Uber/Lyft.
  - kdf83 8y ago
    "Might" react. If it reacts in the total opposite way then what? Constrain lead to 20cm, full muzzle, sedate the dog incase it's brute power is too much in a unexpected moment of madness.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      That's a weird way of spelling "Use a reasonable leash length for your distance from traffic."
russdill 8y ago
The law is not on the pet owner's side here as far as vet bills. Pets are treated as property, so the max amount due is the cost of replacing the dog.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  The law is not super relevant to whether or not dog owners trust your dog walking service. Wag should probably be trying to go well above what they're legally obligated to do in this situation.
- syshum 8y ago
  Citation... My understand of civil liability would be whom ever caused the harm is responsible for the actual damages done, not simply some raw actuarial table, so if I have vet bills, actual hard costs, then whom ever caused those costs would be responsible for them. I have a hard time believing any jurisdiction would simply toss those costs as unreasonable because the dog is only worth X by some subjective analysis of dog bluebook
  - idontpost 8y ago
    Your mistake is in assuming vet bills constitute actual damages. In US law, dogs are simple property. If you wreck your car and it costs more to fix the car and replace it, the insurance doesn't pay to fix it -- they pay to replace it. Liability is whichever value is LESS. Dogs work the same way under the law. If someone injures your dog, they are liable to either pay 1) to fix the dog or 2) replace the dog, whichever is less.
    - syshum 8y ago
      The key here is INSURANCE which is a contract I have with them that limits the amount they pay out. However in the case of an auto, if I had a rare car for example, and someone caused damage to it, I could, in fact, sue the person that cause the damage and prove the actual damage even if it was above the replacement cause. Their insurance may not cover the difference but that would not absolve that person of the liability
gnicholas 8y ago
> In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver. Not sure how you can jump to that conclusion. A driver can probably assume that a dog being walked by a person, even near the road, will be controlled appropriately by the walker. The only time a driver could not reasonably assume this is where the dog is too large to be controllable by the person (kid or small adult) who is walking it. Without any facts, we can't presume the driver is at fault. Also, we have no way of finding out who that person is, except through Wag. So it's sort of pointless to pin our hopes on them. Lastly, if the driver really were clearly at fault, it would be more likely that the Wag walker would have provided information to this effect. The fact that he/she has not is more consistent with it being the walker's fault.
- diaktifkan 8y ago
  I disagree the Walker would ready up this information. Because fault isn't always clear. And what if they were an immigrant and terrified of the police? To the OP, sorry for your loss. That's a tragic thing to have happen and I hope this is a lesson for you as well not to trust someone without getting to know them first.
- e40 8y ago
  It's almost like people with an agenda have come here to comment. The GP blames the driver and another blames the dog. Without knowing any details. This is very fishy.
  - nicky0 8y ago
    But being Amreica, someone has to be to blame. It can't just be an unlucky accident of circumstances.
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      The author wrote the post because of the company's post-accident behavior, not because there was an accident. His point is that Wag isn't sharing information about what happened, or what parties are involved. Without this information, the author is completely helpless. And the only way to get anything from Wag is to pre-emptively forego all recourse, including sharing his story. This is the primary focus — not on the mere fact of the accident.
coldtea 8y ago
>Maximum? Many pups cost more than this and you'd be paying to replace at least. You might also be paying for any amount of vet bills if the animal isn't killed on the spot. If you hit a service or working dog, be ready to shell out tens of thousands for replacement due to the unique tasks performed Still a limited and insignificant amount as far as compensations go (which could reach tens of millions in other cases), which is the parent's point.
- cgriswald 8y ago
  Parent was putting it forward as a matter of policy. Risking $250-20,000 per $15 walk by people you’ve barely vetted and hoping no drivers whom you have no relationship at all with won’t make a mistake seems neither limited nor insignificant.
harimau777 8y ago
In terms of going after the driver: My parents showed dogs semi-professionally; however, when I learned to drive my father taught me that if an animal darts into the road you can slow down, but you don't swerve to miss it since that can cause an accident. It's certainly possible that the driver was at fault if they were speeding or driving recklessly, but like another commenter mentioned I don't think we know enough to say.

landryraccoon 8y ago

I’d be more sympathetic to Wag if they made it possible for the pet owner to pursue the drivers. As it stands, it sounds like they have not provided enough details to identify the walker, let alone investigate the driver (if there even was one). So I’d say Wag is just as culpable as a maybe-existing-driver.

mcorning 8y ago

No matter, this incident in particular is still a drop in the bucket for Wag. Wag knew the dog was dead. All they needed to do in order to look good was pay for the cremation, maybe the cost of the dog, and be supportive. Instead the did the opposite and came off looking greedy, dismissive, and insensitive.

kdf83 8y ago

"In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver." Have you considered the dog was at fault? I mean unless the leash is incredible short it would be pretty easy to jump into an oncoming car if pavement is small. Playing devil advocate here but since we've considered Wag, the walker and driver surely we can consider the animal at fault too unless the lease was 20cms and dog was practically being dragged

mrob 8y ago
A dog is an animal. It has no moral responsibility. If a dog does something wrong the fault lies with the person in charge who failed to control it. A professional dog walker should be aware of traffic and anticipate how the dog might react.
- jasonbarrah 8y ago
  "Professional" dog walker. I was thinking about this the other day while my Lyft driver took two wrong turns while extolling the virtues of socialism. Professional drivers used to be professional drivers. 'Professional' in the gig economy just means they have a smart phone and someones social security number.
  - kingofpandora 8y ago
    Let me preface this by saying I've never paid for a Lyft or Uber in my life and probably never will. However, what you just described sounds like a typical taxi ride as well, i.e. with a professional driver.
    - benatkin 8y ago
      It still means that with black cabs in London, but it's true that the concept of a professional driver was already lacking in most places before Uber/Lyft.
- kdf83 8y ago
  "Might" react. If it reacts in the total opposite way then what? Constrain lead to 20cm, full muzzle, sedate the dog incase it's brute power is too much in a unexpected moment of madness.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    That's a weird way of spelling "Use a reasonable leash length for your distance from traffic."

russdill 8y ago

The law is not on the pet owner's side here as far as vet bills. Pets are treated as property, so the max amount due is the cost of replacing the dog.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
The law is not super relevant to whether or not dog owners trust your dog walking service. Wag should probably be trying to go well above what they're legally obligated to do in this situation.
syshum 8y ago
Citation... My understand of civil liability would be whom ever caused the harm is responsible for the actual damages done, not simply some raw actuarial table, so if I have vet bills, actual hard costs, then whom ever caused those costs would be responsible for them. I have a hard time believing any jurisdiction would simply toss those costs as unreasonable because the dog is only worth X by some subjective analysis of dog bluebook
- idontpost 8y ago
  Your mistake is in assuming vet bills constitute actual damages. In US law, dogs are simple property. If you wreck your car and it costs more to fix the car and replace it, the insurance doesn't pay to fix it -- they pay to replace it. Liability is whichever value is LESS. Dogs work the same way under the law. If someone injures your dog, they are liable to either pay 1) to fix the dog or 2) replace the dog, whichever is less.
  - syshum 8y ago
    The key here is INSURANCE which is a contract I have with them that limits the amount they pay out. However in the case of an auto, if I had a rare car for example, and someone caused damage to it, I could, in fact, sue the person that cause the damage and prove the actual damage even if it was above the replacement cause. Their insurance may not cover the difference but that would not absolve that person of the liability

gnicholas 8y ago

> In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver. Not sure how you can jump to that conclusion. A driver can probably assume that a dog being walked by a person, even near the road, will be controlled appropriately by the walker. The only time a driver could not reasonably assume this is where the dog is too large to be controllable by the person (kid or small adult) who is walking it. Without any facts, we can't presume the driver is at fault. Also, we have no way of finding out who that person is, except through Wag. So it's sort of pointless to pin our hopes on them. Lastly, if the driver really were clearly at fault, it would be more likely that the Wag walker would have provided information to this effect. The fact that he/she has not is more consistent with it being the walker's fault.

diaktifkan 8y ago
I disagree the Walker would ready up this information. Because fault isn't always clear. And what if they were an immigrant and terrified of the police? To the OP, sorry for your loss. That's a tragic thing to have happen and I hope this is a lesson for you as well not to trust someone without getting to know them first.
e40 8y ago
It's almost like people with an agenda have come here to comment. The GP blames the driver and another blames the dog. Without knowing any details. This is very fishy.
- nicky0 8y ago
  But being Amreica, someone has to be to blame. It can't just be an unlucky accident of circumstances.
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    The author wrote the post because of the company's post-accident behavior, not because there was an accident. His point is that Wag isn't sharing information about what happened, or what parties are involved. Without this information, the author is completely helpless. And the only way to get anything from Wag is to pre-emptively forego all recourse, including sharing his story. This is the primary focus — not on the mere fact of the accident.

coldtea 8y ago

>Maximum? Many pups cost more than this and you'd be paying to replace at least. You might also be paying for any amount of vet bills if the animal isn't killed on the spot. If you hit a service or working dog, be ready to shell out tens of thousands for replacement due to the unique tasks performed Still a limited and insignificant amount as far as compensations go (which could reach tens of millions in other cases), which is the parent's point.

cgriswald 8y ago
Parent was putting it forward as a matter of policy. Risking $250-20,000 per $15 walk by people you’ve barely vetted and hoping no drivers whom you have no relationship at all with won’t make a mistake seems neither limited nor insignificant.

harimau777 8y ago

In terms of going after the driver: My parents showed dogs semi-professionally; however, when I learned to drive my father taught me that if an animal darts into the road you can slow down, but you don't swerve to miss it since that can cause an accident. It's certainly possible that the driver was at fault if they were speeding or driving recklessly, but like another commenter mentioned I don't think we know enough to say.