There's been quite a bit of condemnation on the list for the people who
hit-and-run animals, which I agree with.  But what about the owners of these
animals?  Aren't they usually the ones responsible for their dogs getting
hit in the first place?

I've had first hand experience with this problem.  About 12 years ago, I hit
a Bull Mastiff while driving home one night.  I was doing about 30 MPH when
the dog darted out in front of my '87 Vanagon.  The impact cracked my
bumper, grille and headlights.  Needless to say, I stopped.  Luckily the
accident happened in front of the house where the dog lived.  The owner
heard the commotion and came outside right after the accident.  This is when
the "fun" started.  Understandably, the dog's owner was quite upset, however
he had the balls to blamed me for the accident.  After a few tense minutes,
we agreed to exchange phone numbers and deal with it later so he could take
his dog to the vet.  The dog survived and the owner and I ended up in small
claims court.

He sued me.  I sued him.  I won.  The case took less then 5 minutes.  Here
in California, a dog owner is legally responsible for controlling their
animal.  It was a slam dunk.  Not only did this guy have to pay me $1200 for
the damage to my van, he also had to pay more then $2700 in vet bills.  I
bet he's more careful about controlling his dogs now.

Cats are a bit more problematic, because here in California cats are allowed
to roam free.

Accidents do happen.  And I agree that it is reprehensible to hit-and-run
any animal (or person).  However, most of these incidents could've been
avoided had the dog's owner controlled the animal.

Cheers,

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf
Of Jeffrey Earl
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 11:06 AM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: NVC: was Epoxy for bumper molding repair

bghuna@MCHSI.COM writes:
> My wife hit a dog today and the front of her '01
Toyota sustained minor
> damage (as did the dog).