DELETED_3139

AtreuS · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:44

rscosworth said:
As said above - if you run over a cat you can drive on - if you run over a dog you have to report it.

I think this shows where the law stands on this issue!

Actually thats not true anymore. As i said above my dog got hit by a car and killed 6 weeks ago and although i dont blame the driver i was interested as to wether he should have stopped, he didnt.

I enquired as to the law on the matter at my local police station down the road and was told that no, you no longer have to stop and notify anyone of an accident with a dog. I was sure you did but apparently since they withdrew dog license's years ago the need to notify the police of a dog accident with a car is no longer legally required. Then again maybe they just told me that to make me go away, with the quality of the police round here it wouldnt suprise me to be honest!

Wicksta · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:46

pioneer2000 said:
The man's cat has just died and that bloodsucking vet wants to charge him for not saving his pet. Perhaps if the vet had any morals / conscience he/she would waive the charge in light of the fact that the OP is already dealing with an upsetting situation.

A vet is a business not a charity. It's pretty kind of them to take such emergency cases as it is as I bet a lot of scumbags won't pay. I would gladly pay it as I would hate someone to turn a pet of mine away because some people are so tight. As gilly points out there is no excuse not to have your pets insured, if you can't afford it then you can't afford the pet.

Knubje · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:46

rscosworth said:
As said above - if you run over a cat you can drive on - if you run over a dog you have to report it.

Actually its only "working" dogs that you have to report IIRC (Sheep dogs, etc). If its some mutt in the street you are obliged to do nothing, although most would.

rscosworth · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:48

AtreuS said:
Actually thats not true anymore. As i said above my dog got hit by a car and killed 6 weeks ago and although i dont blame the driver i was interested as to wether he should have stopped, he didnt.

I enquired as to the law on the matter at my local police station down the road and was told that no, you no longer have to stop and notify anyone of an accident with a dog. I was sure you did but apparently since they withdrew dog license's years ago the need to notify the police of a dog accident with a car is no longer legally required. Then again maybe they just told me that to make me go away, with the quality of the police round here it wouldnt suprise me to be honest!

Knubje said:
Actually its only "working" dogs that you have to report IIRC (Sheep dogs, etc). If its some mutt in the street you are obliged to do nothing, although most would.

Well there you go then - if the driver felt obliged to take it to the vets then the bill should land on his door, not the OP's

Streeteh · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:48

I would pay simply because if you don't i imagine the vets will begin hassling the person that took your cat to the vet. Even if it was the driver, not many people would bother going to those lengths for someone elses pet, they shouldn't pay for doing what is imo a good thing. It's not exactly life affecting sums of money.

Gilly · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:50

rscosworth said:
I dont believe thats the point - whether or not he is too tight for insurance isnt the issue - some pets are not insurable (within reason).

If you read my posts earlier I was talking morally, not legally. I think given that you're talking about fees insurance is the crux of the matter. It may be that I pay out more insurance money than I would vet bills for the duration of my pet's lives. I hope that is the case! However, if something was to go wrong I know my pet would be looked after as much as is humanly possible.

The amount of money we're talking in the OP's situation wouldn't even invoke my insurance - the excess wouldn't be hit.

If you choose a pet that is uninsurable then you should have done your research and budgeted to take care of it or not bought the animal

rscosworth said:
As said above - if you run over a cat you can drive on - if you run over a dog you have to report it.

I think this shows where the law stands on this issue!

This is no longer the case.

pioneer2000 said:
The man's cat has just died and that bloodsucking vet wants to charge him for not saving his pet. Perhaps if the vet had any morals / conscience he/she would waive the charge in light of the fact that the OP is already dealing with an upsetting situation.

The vet was doing his job. It isn't a charity.

Deluxe1 · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:52

Just pay the bill and stop being tight,i'm sure if you had of been home yourself when it happened you would have done the same and taken the cat to the nearest vet and paid the bill your just looking for a easy way out of not paying the 64 quid.

If you cant afford vet fees (or dont like paying them) for the pets you have then you shouldnt have them in the first place.

romperstomper · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:53

Gilly said:
[edit]On morals alone you shouldn't even consider not paying it.

Agreed .If they don't get paid the next time a cat comes in injured they may decide they can't afford to keep treating injured cats .

Its only £64 pay it !

Maccy · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:53

Just pay it, it's only £64.

csmager · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:57

I would have thought that legally this was 'agency of necessity'. The person acted on your behalf as you weren't there and something needed to be done, so you'd even be liable to pay the stranger back if they'd paid the bill themselves.

A more common example of agency of necessity is if your water was pouring out of your house due to a water leak and a neighbour calling a plumber to fix it. You'd still be the one liable to pay the neighbour back (or the bill).

An agent who seeks to bind a principal on the grounds of an agency of necessity will need to show that:

- The agent had no practical way of contacting the principal in order to obtain the principal's instructions;

- His actions arose from some pressing need for action (usually an emergency of some kind);

- He acted in good faith in the interests of the principal rather than in his own interests; and

- His action was reasonable and prudent in the circumstances.

bledd · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:58

Maccy said:
Just pay it, it's only £64.

can you buy me a new hard drive please, it's only £55

bigmouse64 · 30 Oct 2008 at 11:59

Gilly said:
On morals alone you shouldn't even consider not paying it.

Exactly what I was thinking.

orderoftheflame · 30 Oct 2008 at 12:00

bledd. said:
can you buy me a new hard drive please, it's only £55

Buy it yourself, it's only £55.

JBuk · 30 Oct 2008 at 12:00

I have no idea if you're legally obliged to pay, on the one hand you didn't give permission for the cat to be treated on the other its your pet so your responsibility

Morally I think you should pay

rscosworth · 30 Oct 2008 at 12:01

Gilly said:
If you choose a pet that is uninsurable then you should have done your research and budgeted to take care of it or not bought the animal

Are you the kind of person who takes out the insurance on the microwave, toaster, kettle when you buy them?

Before i bought my dragons i researched the species for well over 6 months, made sure the setup was correct etc - however, when looking at insurance for them we weighed this up with the purchase price the ongoing costs and deemed that it was not economically viable - its a sensible decision to make and one that should be thought of more.

Should the OP also offer to pay for a new bumper? I think not...

pioneer2000 · 30 Oct 2008 at 12:05

Wicksta said:
A vet is a business not a charity. It's pretty kind of them to take such emergency cases as it is as I bet a lot of scumbags won't pay. I would gladly pay it as I would hate someone to turn a pet of mine away because some people are so tight. As gilly points out there is no excuse not to have your pets insured, if you can't afford it then you can't afford the pet.

Oh right, obviously money is more important than actually saving an animals life for someone who cares about it. Whatever happened to people being kind to each other...

Perhaps the vet saw it lying on the ground dying and thought "ker-ching!!" :rolleyes:

Gilly · 30 Oct 2008 at 12:05

No, because they're all inexpensive items. What's the point in me insuring items that would cost more to replace fully than they would to claim off insurance for?

You shouldn't own your dragons if you can't care for them properly. That goes for the OP if he can't afford £64 to pay for the vet to look after his cat. What would have happened if it had broken it's legs but survived? Would he have forsaken his cat because he couldn't pay the bills for it to recover?

pioneer2000 said:
Oh right, obviously money is more important than actually saving an animals life for someone who cares about it. Whatever happened to people being kind to each other...

Perhaps the vet saw it lying on the ground dying and thought "ker-ching!!"

What on earth are you talking about? If vets offer their services for free they'd no longer be able to stay open. Win-win there, eh? :rolleyes:

rscosworth · 30 Oct 2008 at 12:09

Gilly said:
You shouldn't own your dragons if you can't care for them properly. That goes for the OP if he can't afford £64 to pay for the vet to look after his cat. What would have happened if it had broken it's legs but survived? Would he have forsaken his cat because he couldn't pay the bills for it to recover?

I do, and can care for my dragons properly. I take them to the vets for regual checkups, they get the best of everything. But, i also have a brain and im a sensible person. There would seriously be some thought before agreeing to a bill over a certain amount.

The OP can pay the £64, hes just asking if he has a legal obligation to.

I can see this as usual descending into a GD barny - so will bow out before i get dragged deeped into this.

A.N.Other · 30 Oct 2008 at 12:10

Pay it. I can understand why you'd be a bit miffed to come back to a vets bill and still not have a cat, but at the end of the day, they did try to save it and that incurred a cost.

Gilly · 30 Oct 2008 at 12:11

rscosworth said:
I do, and can care for my dragons properly. I take them to the vets for regual checkups, they get the best of everything. But, i also have a brain and im a sensible person. There would seriously be some thought before agreeing to a bill over a certain amount.

Well that is what insurance is for, and I'd rather have an animal that can be cared for properly and to the best of my (and my vet's) abilities than think 'ooh, £200 is a bit steep, nah I'll just get a new one'.