OMG - I can't believe I just read this. Of course it was an accident and I don't think anyone would dispute that. Leaving the scene was not an accident and is horrible, cruel and makes me sick. How could you leave without checking on the animals welfare ? The animal may have lain there for hours suffering. The animal may have died. Whether or not it is someones pet is totally irrelevant. And if it was someones pet even MORE reason for the outcome to be known. Can you imagine not knowing what happened ??? It was a living , breathing creature. Accidents DO happen but they need to be handled - NOT driven away from. You should feel badly and be ashamed of yourself. I can't even believe people are bringing up whether the owner of the animal was negligent. Huh ???? Negligence has nothing to do with reporting an accident and CHECKING TO SEE IF WHAT YOU HIT IS OK OR NEEDS ASSISTANCE.

Call the police and report it and then ask whatever higher power you believe in for guidance and forgiveness......unbelievable.

My point regarding the negligence of the owner was not in justifying the hit and run, or the failure to report it, but only in response to the suggestion that she should pay for the entire vet bills or the cost of a new pet. I have a HUGE problem with that - because the animal could not have been hit if the owners had not been negligent.

It doesn't mean I'm saying that it's ok to run over animals just for fun because hey, it's the owner's fault for letting the animal out of the house.

I'm also not trying to "punish" the owner for being negligent - I think for most folks the death or injury of the animal is far worse punishment than any that could be imposed. But I strongly believe that offering full restitution implies not only to the owner, but as an example to the community, that the owner has no responsibility for keeping their animals safe. Just let them run, and if someone kills your pet, they'll just buy you a new one.

How often do you see small dogs running free? It's rare, because most folks know they must keep them indoors to keep them safe. Sadly, the statistics are that most dogs at loose are loose because the owner either let them out to roam or worse, dumped the dog intentionally (this is unfortunately, especially true of the smaller breeds - if they're wandering, it's because they've been dumped) or because the owner was aware that the dog had "escape" issues, but hadn't "gotten around to" fixing the fence, or otherwise addressing the escape issue. And I suspect that anyone who would dump a small dog, would happily accept payment for their "pain and suffering," even though their intention was to be rid of the dog, in the first place.

I'm normally a fairly trusting and optimistic person (not so much because of my experience with people, but more because I choose to be) , but working with the humane society, sadly I can't choose to pretend where roaming pets are concerned. I've learned how rare it is for small "strays" to be wanted pets. With big dogs, there's at least a fair chance of the owner reclaiming the dog,(and they're warned of the dangers of letting the dog run), but with the small dogs - even if the owner is tracked down, the odds are that they won't reclaim the dog. Some will say that the dog "escaped," but then not be willing to pay the relatively small fee to reclaim the dog. It is often very apparent that the person doesn't want to admit to dumping a dog intentionally, so they'll say they can't afford the reclamation fee (and if they're told there's a fund to for financial aid to needy families, they just have to fill out the application and provide proof of income and expenses.... huh, what do you know the person has a new excuse for not being able to do so, or they promise to come in and just never do).

In my experience with humane societies in both Wisconsin and Illinois, at least 80% of "strays," are deliberately allowed to run (either because they want the dog to have its "freedom" or because they're deliberately trying to rid themselves of the animal). For small dogs, unfortunately, the odds are even higher that the dog was an intentional dump, because most people are smart enough to realize that allowing a small dog to run is a very stupid idea. I think the risk of rewarding someone for deliberately dumping their animal is just too big a risk, especially since a responsible owner, would almost assuredly feel far too guilty to accept the money, knowing the driver could not have prevented the accident.

That's funny the law books here in Virginia say that ALL pedestrians have the right of way. So does California. Don't have time to check all the other states.

Also the criminal court may have exonerated the driver but the civil court might think otherwise.

Also this is straight out of WikiAnswers.com
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_do_pe...motor_vehicles

Q: When do pedestrians have the right-of-way over motor vehicles?

A: always

witchy-I'm sure this poster feels bad enough with out trying to give her a guilt trip!

She obviously feels guilty about what happened... she was under pressure her mother was making her feel guilty .. think about it... she already feels an extreme amount of guilt to be posting about it.. to me that shows remorse and it shows she has a heart! leave her a lone! I' m positive you haven't always handled every situation you've cause ideally either- So I would just get off your high horse!

and as far as your concerned nana- I know you feel bad. I'm sorry you caved under the pressure. no one knows exactly what they'd do in a situation until it happens to them so don't let other judging you make you feel bad..

I like the idea of maybe volunteering at the humane society for a day or a week, maybe foster a cat or dog who would face euthanization/ death unless it can find a temporary home until a permanent one can be found, maybe donate to the humane society or ASPCA, or other worthy animal charity ... I think these may be ways to make you feel better about yourself good luck with forgiving yourself! you do deserve to be forgiven!

There's a big difference between "right of way" and saying the driver is responsible for all collisions with a pedestrian, regardless of whether there was any possible way to foresee or expect the pedestrian until it's too late. The incidents I described in which a the toddler on the highway at night and the suicidal man who was standing (not walking) by the side of a busy road, and looking at the semi approaching, to all appearances waiting for the semi to pass and then jumping in front of the semi at the very last second - both of those incidents were in "right of way" jurisdictions, but right of way does not mean "no matter what the pedestrian does, and even if there was no way for a responsible driver to have avoided the accident."

Besides which, animals do not have the right of way in any jurisdiction in which I'm aware (in some jurisdictions, I believe there are some laws on the books regarding some animals having right of way, but this is generally not family pets, but rather cattle or endangered species).

In Massachusetts pedestrians always have the right of way - but that is completely off topic. I HAVE hit a dog and I stopped and checked on it. It ran away and I called the police and knocked door to door looking for the owner. I was two hours late for work and VERY upset but I DID the right thing and am not on "my high horse". WRONG IS WRONG and there is no excuse. She put the question on a public forum and should be prepared for responses.

We can't predict how we'll react under tragic circumstances, especially when our choices are influenced by others. I hope you find the personal strength needed to deal with your grief and move forward.

I hope no one minds, but I'm going to go ahead and close this thread.