Why did the dog owner claim nearly $10,000 for medical expenses, transportation, etc., for the crash of the dog? On 15 September, the People ' s Court of Changzhou City was informed that the Court had recently concluded the case of liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents and had awarded compensation of $100.
On the day of the incident, Mr. Huang was driving the vehicle and walking normally after the green light. Suddenly, a firewood dog came out of the left side of the vehicle and went straight through the sidewalk, preventing the vehicle from crushing it. The dog was taken by his owner, Mr. Zhang, to hospital for treatment. Mr. Zhang then called the police and, following police calls, issued a statement of responsibility for the accident based on the surveillance footage found.
A few days later, Mr. Zhang found Mr. Huang, claiming that the dog had been seriously injured, that it had cost him more than 6,000 to go to the pet hospital for treatment, and that the total cost of transportation had been approximately $9068, and that Mr. Huang and the insurance company insured the vehicle had been required to pay compensation.
After many unsuccessful consultations, Mr. Zhang brought Mr. Huang and the insurance company before a court of law, arguing that “the defendant had failed in his duty to exercise due diligence and should bear the full cost”.
After hearing the case before the Court, the core facts were restored through the examination of the evidence:
In the present incident, the Road Traffic Award issued by the traffic police department made it clear that Mr. Zhang had failed to fulfil his regulatory obligations only with regard to dogs, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Law of the People ' s Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety, and that his fault was the root cause of the accident and that Mr. Zhang was therefore fully responsible and he was not responsible. Mr. Zhang did not submit an application for review within the prescribed time after receiving the letter of confirmation.
At the time of the incident, the dog had neither a dog tag nor a canine rope, and Mr. Zhang himself was not even present at the scene. He was in violation of the provisions of the Animal Prevention Law of the People's Republic of China, which states that “the dog shall be taken out of the house only by dog rope” and the Hubei Animal Prevention Ordinance, which states that “the dog shall be taken out of the house with a chain of dogs”.
In response to the court's finding that the actual medical expenses of the fuel canine were $6,400 and that the total transportation costs were $1470, the insurance company argued that “there was no legal basis for transportation, moral damages and comfort money”, while Mr. Huang held that “it was his fault and should not be compensated”.
In addition, Mr. Huang ' s vehicle was insured by the insurance company, which, under the insurance clause, had a limit of only $100 for the loss of its property, and the insurance company did not bear the costs of the case.
In the end, the court ordered the insurance company to pay Mr. Zhang $100 and dismissed the plaintiff ' s other claims.