5 ms·

This is true for bricks, but it is not true if your dog starts up your car and hits a pedestrian. Collisions caused by non-human drivers are a fascinating edge

This is true for bricks, but it is not true if your dog starts up your car and hits a pedestrian. Collisions caused by non-human drivers are a fascinating edge case for the times we're in.

victorbjorklund 9mo ago
I don’t know where you from but at least in Sweden you have strict liability for anything your dog does
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
freejazz 9mo ago
Prima facie negligence = liability
ori_b 9mo ago
In the USA, at least, it seems pet owners are liable for any harm their pets do.
cess11 9mo ago
Legally, in a lot of jurisdictions, a dog is just your property. What it does, you did, usually with presumed intent or strict liability.
- gowld 9mo ago
  What if you planted a bush that attracted a bat that bit a child?
  - Muromec 9mo ago
    What if you have an email in your inbox warning you that 1) this specific bush attracts bats and 2) there were in fact bats seen near you bush and 3) bats were observed almost biting a child before. And you also have "how do I fuck up them kids by planting a bush that attracts bats" in your browser history. It's a spectrum you know.
  - dragonwriter 9mo ago
    Well, if it was a bush known to also attract children, it was on your property, and the child was in fact attracted by it and also on your property, and the presence of the bush created the danger of bat bites, the principal of “attractive nuisance” is in play.
  - b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
    what if my auntie had wheels, would she be a wagon?
  - cess11 9mo ago
    Would a reasonable person typically consider this an act that risk causing harm to kids?
jacquesm 9mo ago
It is very much true for dogs in that case: (1) it is your dog (2) it is your car (3) it is your responsibility to make sure your car can not be started by your dog (4) the pedestrian has a reasonable expectation that a vehicle that is parked without a person in it has been made safe to the point that it will not suddenly start to move without an operator in it and dogs don't qualify. You'd lose that lawsuit in a heartbeat.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  what if your car was parked in a normal way that a reasonable person would not expect to be able to be started by a dog, but the dog did several things that no reasonable person would expect and started it anyway?
  - jacquesm 9mo ago
    You can 'what if' this until the cows come home but you are responsible, period. I don't know what kind of drivers education you get where you live but where I live and have lived one of the basic bits is that you know how to park and lock your vehicle safely and that includes removing the ignition key (assuming your car has one) and setting the parking brake. You aim the wheels at the kerb (if there is one) when you're on an incline. And if you're in a stick shift you set the gear to neutral (in some countries they will teach you to set the gear to 1st or reverse, for various reasons). We also have road worthiness assessments that ensure that all these systems work as advertised. You could let a pack of dogs loose in my car in any external circumstance and they would not be able to move it, though I'd hate to clean up the interior afterwards.
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      I agree. The dog smashed the window, hot–wired the ignition, released the parking brake, shifted to drive, and turned the wheel towards the opposite side of the road where a mother was pushing a stroller, killing the baby. I know, crazy right, but I swear I'm not lying, the neighbor caught it on camera. Who's liable? I think this would be a freak accident. Nobody would be liable.
b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
I'm dubious, do you have any examples of this happening?
Terr_ 9mo ago
Being guilty != Being responsible They correlate, but we must be careful not to mistake one for the other. The latter is a lower bar.

This is true for bricks, but it is not true if your dog starts up your car and hits a pedestrian. Collisions caused by non-human drivers are a fascinating edge case for the times we're in.

victorbjorklund 9mo ago

I don’t know where you from but at least in Sweden you have strict liability for anything your dog does

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

freejazz 9mo ago

Prima facie negligence = liability

ori_b 9mo ago

In the USA, at least, it seems pet owners are liable for any harm their pets do.

cess11 9mo ago

Legally, in a lot of jurisdictions, a dog is just your property. What it does, you did, usually with presumed intent or strict liability.

gowld 9mo ago
What if you planted a bush that attracted a bat that bit a child?
- Muromec 9mo ago
  What if you have an email in your inbox warning you that 1) this specific bush attracts bats and 2) there were in fact bats seen near you bush and 3) bats were observed almost biting a child before. And you also have "how do I fuck up them kids by planting a bush that attracts bats" in your browser history. It's a spectrum you know.
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  Well, if it was a bush known to also attract children, it was on your property, and the child was in fact attracted by it and also on your property, and the presence of the bush created the danger of bat bites, the principal of “attractive nuisance” is in play.
- b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
  what if my auntie had wheels, would she be a wagon?
- cess11 9mo ago
  Would a reasonable person typically consider this an act that risk causing harm to kids?

jacquesm 9mo ago

It is very much true for dogs in that case: (1) it is your dog (2) it is your car (3) it is your responsibility to make sure your car can not be started by your dog (4) the pedestrian has a reasonable expectation that a vehicle that is parked without a person in it has been made safe to the point that it will not suddenly start to move without an operator in it and dogs don't qualify. You'd lose that lawsuit in a heartbeat.

direwolf20 9mo ago
what if your car was parked in a normal way that a reasonable person would not expect to be able to be started by a dog, but the dog did several things that no reasonable person would expect and started it anyway?
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  You can 'what if' this until the cows come home but you are responsible, period. I don't know what kind of drivers education you get where you live but where I live and have lived one of the basic bits is that you know how to park and lock your vehicle safely and that includes removing the ignition key (assuming your car has one) and setting the parking brake. You aim the wheels at the kerb (if there is one) when you're on an incline. And if you're in a stick shift you set the gear to neutral (in some countries they will teach you to set the gear to 1st or reverse, for various reasons). We also have road worthiness assessments that ensure that all these systems work as advertised. You could let a pack of dogs loose in my car in any external circumstance and they would not be able to move it, though I'd hate to clean up the interior afterwards.
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    I agree. The dog smashed the window, hot–wired the ignition, released the parking brake, shifted to drive, and turned the wheel towards the opposite side of the road where a mother was pushing a stroller, killing the baby. I know, crazy right, but I swear I'm not lying, the neighbor caught it on camera. Who's liable? I think this would be a freak accident. Nobody would be liable.

b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago

I'm dubious, do you have any examples of this happening?

Terr_ 9mo ago

Being guilty != Being responsible They correlate, but we must be careful not to mistake one for the other. The latter is a lower bar.