Driver kills Fester the dog, then sues owners

The driver of a 1997 Honda Civic that struck and killed a dog near Cloquet is suing the dog's owners for damage done to his vehicle.

[Wow]

What a dork...the driver.

What a bunch of selfish jerks....the dog owners. Try the shelter for your dog adoptions.

[janel]

How fast are you driving that a 13 pound dog does that much damage? What was the speed limit on the road?

[Makes me say hmmmm]

A 13 pound dog causing all that radiator damage? Did the guy even TRY to stop? Because I'm thinking it had to be a pretty forceful accident for that too occur.

As for the post above, have you been to a shelter? Any dog there is usually at least $200 and that's a bargain given all the care they are given at the shelters.

It was an accident. I don't blame the owners at all for counter-suing. That's too nice in my opinion. Dude wouldn't have a car left if he hit a my dog and then tried this, I'd be sure of it.

[Nickled and Dimed]

The costs the driver and dog owners have incurred are about equal...so let's all grow up and pay our own bills.

[sense]

The peta crowd is out in force today

What do people not understand about the leash law?
The poor guy who suffered through running over someone's pet is being vilified by people that have no idea what happened.

Some people,(many), are more distraught over the death of a dog than if this were a child that died in the same way. Those are the people that need a reality check.

I hope he gets a million, just for having to put up with you PETA clowns.

[TiVo Girl]

Hmmm...didn't the driver have insurance? Dude, that's what insurance is for...accidents, and damage to your vehicle. Of course, with a 1997 piece of crap (hello! buy a new car!), he probably didn't have collision insurance. I'd say it's the driver's responsibility to carry full coverage, even though it's only required when a vehicle is financed. He chose to drop full coverage, thereby forfeiting his right to compensation from anyone for damage to his car. He took the gamble, and lost. Now he's gambling he'll win a lawsuit. You can win a lawsuit, but nothing guarantees you'll collect a dime, and he'll be out the court fees as well. It would have been cheaper to just fix the car and move on. Get over it, ya crybaby.

Sounds like the kind of guy that would sue the city for a boulevard tree being in his way if he hit that, or would sue the DNR for allowing deer to live in the state if he hit one of those.

[Nate]

Ely must have been driving at a good clip and failed to stop in order for a 13 pound dog to damage the car to that extent. I do not seen how some of the bumper shrapnel can penetrate the radiator to cause it to leak other than it already being near failure--assuming it was the original. If he has a/c in the car, the condenser is in front of the radiator and should have been damaged first.
The dog owners have the right to countersue but I don't think they would have if the driver had not sued in the first place.
Take responsibility of your own actions and stop trying to blame others for your failures.

[TiVo Girl]

Hey, No "Sense"? Read the article. The dog got out of the freakin' house when they let their other dog in! Who keeps their dog on a leash inside the house? What the article doesn't say is if they have a fenced yard, which they probably should if they have dogs that go outside, and they live on a busy road.

[WOW]

OK...at first I thought suing the dogs owners was a bit much. Which it is - after all, what is car insurance for? Or was the driver breaking the law and not carrying any insurance? is that why he's suing?

BUT, as far as the dogs owners counter suing, that is over the line. If your so worried about the street, then get a fence. It is the dogs owners responsibility to keep the dog out of the street. Counter suing, unbelievable.

I agree with the last post, all should grow up.

[Small Business Owner]

Makes me say hmmmm wrote:

A 13 pound dog causing all that radiator damage? Did the guy even TRY to stop? Because I'm thinking it had to be a pretty forceful accident for that too occur.
As for the post above, have you been to a shelter? Any dog there is usually at least $200 and that's a bargain given all the care they are given at the shelters.
It was an accident. I don't blame the owners at all for counter-suing. That's too nice in my opinion. Dude wouldn't have a car left if he hit a my dog and then tried this, I'd be sure of it.

If your dog is running loose in the street you are liable for violating leash laws, and probably going to lose, unless you can prove the driver was operating in a reckless fashion.

[Rjovik]

This is a frivolous lawsuit on both parties part.

Throw them both out!

[been there]

I can believe hitting a 13 pound dog would do that much damage.
I hit a raccoon once and it knocked a fairly large chunk of the cheap plastic bumper covers found on nearly all cars now off.
Cost to repair that alone was over $500 so I said screw it.
And unless you have deep pockets to cover the deductibles, why should the driver be asked to pay for a dog in violation of leash laws?

[MN Gal]

This is what I was thinking as well..........a 1997?? there is no way a 13 lb dog could do that kind of damage!! I think the car was already broken, and he used the dog as an excuse to get it fixed!! GROW UP dude!!! As for the owners of the dog.......I'm with the rest of the people on here......go to the shelter! No dog should cost that amount......I'm sorry it died, but good lord!!
I am amazed at the crud that is news nowadays, and even more amazed at the things people sue for.

TiVo Girl wrote:

Hmmm...didn't the driver have insurance? Dude, that's what insurance is for...accidents, and damage to your vehicle. Of course, with a 1997 piece of crap (hello! buy a new car!), he probably didn't have collision insurance. I'd say it's the driver's responsibility to carry full coverage, even though it's only required when a vehicle is financed. He chose to drop full coverage, thereby forfeiting his right to compensation from anyone for damage to his car. He took the gamble, and lost. Now he's gambling he'll win a lawsuit. You can win a lawsuit, but nothing guarantees you'll collect a dime, and he'll be out the court fees as well. It would have been cheaper to just fix the car and move on. Get over it, ya crybaby.
Sounds like the kind of guy that would sue the city for a boulevard tree being in his way if he hit that, or would sue the DNR for allowing deer to live in the state if he hit one of those.

[been there]

For all the posters belittling the driver... what would your position be if the dog "escaped", ran out and bit a kid?
It is not a matter of how the dog out.

[Bow Wow]

How in the world can the Munthes actually feel a countersuit is the right thing to do when they are responsible for their dog running onto the road?
Granted, the original suit may not have merit but their suit is even more frivolous.

[AHAB]

Re the comments from Meadowlands, MN, what the heck are you talking about? You must have a real axe to grind with PETA, but there are no PETA issues involved in this story. Get some psychiatric help and stop polluting these responses!
I agree with the others, who wonder how a 13 pound dog could do so much damage, unless the driver was speeding or was too distracted to stop. What a callous action on his part. I'll bet the counter suit was just in response to his cold hearted attempt to get money.

[sense]

TiVo Girl wrote:

Hey, No "Sense"? Read the article. The dog got out of the freakin' house when they let their other dog in! Who keeps their dog on a leash inside the house? What the article doesn't say is if they have a fenced yard, which they probably should if they have dogs that go outside, and they live on a busy road.

It is the responsibility of the dog owners to keep their pets under control ti-void of smarts. Obviously they didn't, which is why this accident happened.
The driver doesn't think he should have to pay for the dog owners lack of responsibility. If the money was coming out of your pocket, you might consider the suit yourself.

[resident of st paul]

JUDGE JUDY where are you?

[Sarah]

For that much damage, the guy must have been speeding. In addition he should have insurance to cover the cost of repairs. If he didn't buy the proper insurance that's his problem.

The owners of the dog should have had a fence around their place if they were so worried about the busy road. The dog is not suppose to run free even if it gets out on its own.

Both suits are about equal and cancel each other out in terms of cost and responsibility. Both parties should have to eat their own costs.

[sense]

AHAB wrote:

Re the comments from Meadowlands, MN, what the heck are you talking about? You must have a real axe to grind with PETA, but there are no PETA issues involved in this story. Get some psychiatric help and stop polluting these responses!
I agree with the others, who wonder how a 13 pound dog could do so much damage, unless the driver was speeding or was too distracted to stop. What a callous action on his part. I'll bet the counter suit was just in response to his cold hearted attempt to get money.

Your whole argument is nothing but silly assumptions. Because the dog was killed, the driver had to be speeding or not trying to stop? These are the only viable options?
To pander these idiotic thoughts and try to pass them of as meaningful conclusions is beyond stupidity. Are you proud of your 'Saturday night live moment'?