Yorkie accidentally killed by neighbor. OK to ask for money?

[gemy]

And so I wonder, if she joined here, just to get some sort of substaniation for any potential claim she wishes to make against the woman who accidentally killed her dog?

What was apparent to me is the OP never questioned how she could have averted or avoided this situation.

[manina]

Originally Posted by Maximo

I disagree that anyone has taken that position on this thread. Many people, including myself, have balked at the value of breeding potential for several different reasons. First, because an abused or neglected dog should not be bred. Second, the dog was CKC. If the dog were assessed for monetary value, the registration, bloodlines, age, background, championship or lack thereof, and purchase/acquisition price would be taken into consideration. On that basis, the dog would not be deemed to be worth that much.

The issue of value comes up often when people rehome pets and want compensation. I always take the position that pets are not an investment; vet care and food and love are not investments.

Agree !! Well said.

Sorry for your loss !!

bark@ulater!!!!
manina,mileymax

[boopster]

One other point that hasn't been discussed - it kind of sounds like the woman did keep control of her dog since she was holding on to it and the dog did not injure the Yorkie. If she was injured in the accident, she may actually have a claim against the o.p. since the Yorkie contributed to her fall.

But it's still a tragedy and I feel bad for the op. I know that my dog's value in my eyes is priceless, regardless of the monetary value the courts would place on her.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by Cha Cha

It is entirely possible that this accident would have happened even if the other dog was on a leash. We're talking about a smal space of an elevator. We all know how quick the little Yorkies are, and how they can move in between our legs when they are excited. "Maybe" it's possible the Yorkie actually caused the lady to lose her balance in trying to avoid it. No one really knows since we were not there. Also, just because your Yorkie was on a leash, it was not under your control either, so I would see that as unleashed too. We don't really know who was the agressor, since you admitted he went into an open elevator and was not under your control when he did so. I guess I don't see where one person is at blame here. It is very unfortunate and I feel so badly for your loss. It could be argued as a case of your word against hers. This is just another theory to consider. It is a very unfortunate accident.

Something else to consider, even if you were to proceed with this legally, this thread would/could become part of the proceedings.

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

First, I am sorry for the loss of your dog. No matter what the circumstances, it's never easy.




I would like to add that the replacement cost would most likely be assessed at what is the value of a 3 year old dog, and not a puppy. That would be considerably less than the values you listed.

Also, it would be highly unlikely that you would be compensated for the loss of potential income through studding (which is less than you are imagining even with a great dog). You would have to be able to show that you had been making serious plans to breed him by having had his knees and hips certified, all health testing done etc. Vague "I want to breed him at some point" plans won't cut it.

These two posts are my thoughts too. This was not a case of a vicious dog attacking a small dog. It really sounds like the OP was cleaning up poop, did not notice her dog going towards the elevator as another dog came up so she did not have control. The other dog's owner tried to avert a problem and in the panic, she trampled the poor yorkie. For the yorkie to have gotten into the elevator and under the other lady and dog, it definately was not being controlled by the OP. So, the larger dog being leashed or not (which was not mentioned in original post) was really not at issue. The same scenario would have ensued even if he had been leashed. An accident like this should not be blamed on the lady who accidently trampled the yorkie while trying to keep the dogs apart.

I think if the OP goes to court, this other woman might countersue if SHE was injured in the horrible accident. Afterall -- this would not have happened if the little yorkie had been under complete control to begin with. Accidents do happen. We all let our guard down just a little at times and things like this can happen. I would hate to see neighbors go to court over this. The tragedy has already happened, why make it worse? I think our society has gotten sue-crazy. We all need to accept our own responsibility in any incident.

IF by some miracle (and you never know what will happen in court -- not always by the letter of the law or fair) the court decided the lady had to pay replacement cost for a 3 year old male CKC registered dog, the price would be nominal. I am not clear whether the dog was ever registered to the OP as she said the dog was just dropped off at her mother's. If not she might have a time even proving the dog was her "property." I have seen older male CKC yorkies being sold for $200 and occasionally given away for free as this one was, so I doubt there would be much money awarded in the best case scenario for the OP. I too, hope she really would not have considered breeding this little guy, since hs history is dubious at best. It just seems wrong to me to try to profit to the point of $1500-$2500 + "breeding potential" when she got the dog for free to begin, it was NEVER worth $1500-$2500 market value (heart value they are priceless!), was not a breeding prospect, and she shared in the responsibility of this accident.

I have no problem holding people accountable if they are truly at fault. If a dangerous dog is on the loose and harms a fenced, leashed, or controlled yorkie, I would support all measures to make the dangerous dog owner pay. But this seems like a shared liability at best. I think sharing the "vet costs only" would be a nice resolution to a horrible ordeal that no amount of money would ever erase from my mind. I tuck stories like this in my brain files, to remember to be even more vigilant than seems necessary, because our precious babies are so fragile. I just feel so sorry for this pup. First enduring an abusive first 2 years of life and then meeting such disaster. May he RIP!

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by gemy

And so I wonder, if she joined here, just to get some sort of substaniation for any potential claim she wishes to make against the woman who accidentally killed her dog?

What was apparent to me is the OP never questioned how she could have averted or avoided this situation.

Actually this is the second thread she has started. The first she showed pictures of Max with substantial bleeding from his behind. Everyone urged her to get him immediate medical attention as it looked suspiciously like a ruptured anal gland, but she said there were no vets open in the Chicago area????? that day. Another poster told her there were several open and gave her a list of open vets near her -- she then just stopped posting and never did update. There were no further posts til this thread. Makes me wonder if he was ever vetted for the previous bleeding problem.

But I do think this thread was in hope of others jumping on her bandwagon, so she could copy them to take to a lawyer.

IKWYM with your last sentence too -- I would be blaming myself, if this happened to me. I would be thinking, "if only I had held on to Max, if only I had kept the leash closer to me, if only I had not taken my eyes from him for a second." Self blame is not really good either, but understanding mutual responsibility for the accident is. Gemy -- I find myself agreeing with your insightful posts so often!

[KazzyK810]

The OP was asking if there were remedies of recovery for the loss she sustained based on the occurrence as she described it. Putting personal opinions aside, it's a tort law liability case based on strict liability of negligence. The court would determine if there was contributory negligence based on evidence and reduce any award accordingly.

I wonder if opinions would change if the dog had lived & sustained lifelong medical issues, or if a similar incident ocurred involving a small toddler.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

Actually this is the second thread she has started. The first she showed pictures of Max with substantial bleeding from his behind. Everyone urged her to get him immediate medical attention as it looked suspiciously like a ruptured anal gland, but she said there were no vets open in the Chicago area????? that day. Another poster told her there were several open and gave her a list of open vets near her -- she then just stopped posting and never did update. There were no further posts til this thread. Makes me wonder if he was ever vetted for the previous bleeding problem.

But I do think this thread was in hope of others jumping on her bandwagon, so she could copy them to take to a lawyer.

IKWYM with your last sentence too -- I would be blaming myself, if this happened to me. I would be thinking, "if only I had held on to Max, if only I had kept the leash closer to me, if only I had not taken my eyes from him for a second." Self blame is not really good either, but understanding mutual responsibility for the accident is. Gemy -- I find myself agreeing with your insightful posts so often!

Oh, my. Poor poor Max. He had an awful last few days of his poor little life.

[concretegurl]

LOL someone was Googling? Was it strict liability only? Hmmmm isn't there also applicable legal violations associated with dogs...don't they lead into another tort issue? Hmmmm suppose it depends somewhat on the value of the accessed damages and weather or not the OP was even pondering punitive...

I just wonder if everyone here would feel the same in the persons shoes with the loss of their dog described as such...I mean I too was shocked the money was such a part of the story etc, but I think that's how some people deal with loss...superficially, I think the OP seemed bitter and somewhat greedy to many but maybe it was out of anger besides that wasn't the question the question was shoudl they seek monetary compensation the "rough justice" is up to the judge.

I wonder why some people feel just being in public makes a difference of being in their on their own property...

I too feel thins was what seems to be an accident, but if I fell on and crushed someone's dog I'd be responsible, if my dog did I'd be responsible not replacement puppy responsible but that's what a judge is for...

I was saddened to see how many people jumped on the OP in this situation instead of just answering...but then it seems the OP has a history...still some people were really rude, I just kept thinking I wonder how I'd react so hurt and angry...or self blaming on what I could have done...

Wonder why people felt the OP would seek any recourse based solely on this thread...not like anyone here saw it or psychically channeled the event...seems odd to me but whatever.

Originally Posted by KazzyK810

The OP was asking if there were remedies of recovery for the loss she sustained based on the occurrence as she described it. Putting personal opinions aside, it's a tort law liability case based on strict liability of negligence. The court would determine if there was contributory negligence based on evidence and reduce any award accordingly.

I wonder if opinions would change if the dog had lived & sustained lifelong medical issues, or if a similar incident ocurred involving a small toddler.

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by kjcmsw

Absolutely not okay to ask for money. This was clearly an accident. This person did not deliberately set out to contribute to your dog's death. They actually tried to prevent it (albeit without the intended outcome) You have an equal responsibility to have been holding him not knowing what was behind the elevator doors. Even if there hadn't been a dog there, the elevator doors could have shut on him.
This person went out of their way, drove you to the animal clinic...clearly they feel bad enough, why try take advantage of the situation? I think that's terrible.

[Lizzie07]

Originally Posted by jaypain

Hi,

Thank you all for your responses. To clarify, though Max was abused, I did not obtain him at a rescue shelter. His previous owner (the abuser) bought him from a breeder and knows my mother. She showed up at my mother's home with him because she could not handle him (I guess when you starve a dog he becomes difficult). She dropped him off with her receipt and his registration papers.

Also, I only referred to yorkie prices as a reference point to show what he is worth.

As for a negligence case, Max was leashed and the big dog was not. Personally, an unleashed 50 lb dog owned by a small female measured against a friendly, leashed dog outweighs whatever negligence, if any, was on my end.

And as for my claim that he was a monetary asset, think about this: If someone threw up on your Marc Jacobs bag and ruined it, you would expect the guilty party to offer some type of reimbursement for the item. And no one would claim you were negligent for leaving your bag near the person who threw up on it either.

Just a thought.

please note I do not think of my dogs in the same way I do handbags and shoes. in this instance, it makes it easier to think about without emotions clouding your reasoning.

I think the only thing you would be able to get for him is what you paid for him. If you could show a receipt for what you paid, like a receipt for a Marc Jacobs bag, then you might get something. In the courts, dogs are property and I'd doubt you'd get more than what you paid for your dog.

[Tessa Arnold]

This is a hard one. I am so sorry for your loss. That poor baby. I'm glad the other owner admitted to their mistake and I am sure they will live with that the rest of their life, I know I would. I have no advice for you, but I do feel for you and the poor baby who's life was short.

[mscat]

I am sorry for your loss. This does seem like a horrible, tragic accident. I think the owner did her best, drove her to the vet hospital and was genuine concerned about Max. however, the op stated she wanted to be compensated for a new, pup, running into thousands of dollars. The op stated she was going to use him as a stud despite the fact he was basically a rescue.
IMOP, the Max's mom was thinking moreso how to make money off her loss then anything else. Perhaps the owner of the big dog will help pay for vet costs, but is not responsible for giving her thousands of dollars , to replace a yorkie that was not even of the same value as her Max.

[Wabbit]

Originally Posted by mscat

I am sorry for your loss. This does seem like a horrible, tragic accident. I think the owner did her best, drove her to the vet hospital and was genuine concerned about Max. however, the op stated she wanted to be compensated for a new, pup, running into thousands of dollars. The op stated she was going to use him as a stud despite the fact he was basically a rescue.

IMOP, the Max's mom was thinking more so how to make money off her loss then anything else. Perhaps the owner of the big dog will help pay for vet costs, but is not responsible for giving her thousands of dollars , to replace a yorkie that was not even of the same value as her Max.

[concretegurl]

Even in accidents...we are responsible for our actions such we have tort laws...otherwise it would be on purpose and considered criminal...just putting that out there...

[SharonTan]

Absolutely. You can sue him for the damages, vet cost, and pain & suffering. Or, you can tell him you want X amount of money (the amount is up to you) or else you will sue him for the reasons above.