Moonlight Sonata, Pro-Bono Law Student (1 Viewer)

[neo o]

Hey Moonlight (and anyone else who may be inclined to help) i'm after, of all things, a legal opinion.

Person A opens a gate to a house and Dog A (which person A doesn't own and which is a dog that isn't classified as dangerous or restricted) runs out and attacks Dog B, which is tethered to a tree on public land. The owner of Dog A was present at the time of the attack. Dog B sustains wounds to its back. The owner of Dog B then presents the owner of Dog A with a vet bill of $2,900 for a chest X-Ray amongst other things, which is obviously stupid.

Statutes :

Penalty units
17 Penalty units
Unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in any Act or statutory rule to a number of penalty units (whether fractional or whole) is taken to be a reference to an amount of money equal to the amount obtained by multiplying $110 by that number of penalty units.

(1) If a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal:
(a) the owner of the dog, or
(b) if the owner is not present at the time of the offence and another person who is of or above the age of 16 years is in charge of the dog at that time that other person,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
(a) 10 penalty units except in the case of a dangerous or restricted dog, or
(b) 100 penalty units in the case of a dangerous or restricted dog.

Liability for injury to animal
27 Liability for injury to animal

(1) The owner of a dog is liable in damages in respect of injury (whether or not fatal) to another animal (whether or not a dog, but other than vermin) caused by the dog attacking or chasing it.
(2) This section does not apply in respect of:
(a) a dog attacking or chasing another animal on any property or vehicle of which the owner of the dog is an occupier or on which the dog is ordinarily kept, but only if the dog is not a dangerous dog under this Act at the time of the incident, or
(b) a dog attacking or chasing another animal in the course of droving, tending, working or protecting stock, or
(c) a dog attacking or chasing another animal where the attacking or chasing is in immediate response to, and is wholly induced by, intentional provocation of the dog by a person other than the owner of the dog or the owner’s employees or agents, or
(d) a dog attacking or causing injury to another animal, where its doing so is in immediate response to, and is wholly induced by, an attack on the dog made by the other animal.
(3) This section does not affect the liability apart from this section of any person for damage caused by a dog.

The vet asked whether the owner of the dog was wealthy, and then jacked up the price. He's also demanding that they pay upfront and if they don't the dogs condition would worsen and the cost of surgery would go up. The dog wasn't limping etc.

Obviously there's something going on here, but I'm not really up to saying anything definite (and I told the person concerned to see a lawyer). Does anyone have an opinion?

EDIT : The girls parents payed $1,000 to the vet without thinking or calling a lawyer, does anyone think that this money can be recovered? Also, the girl's last name is Law, which adds to the humour.

 

[Frigid]

Also, the girl's last name is Law, which adds to the humour.

is this your asian gf?

btw, can't help with the question - sorry

 

[neo o]

is this your asian gf?

btw, can't help with the question - sorry

My girlfriend was Person A . She's feeling a little guilty.

 

[neo o]

what kind of legal opinion....?

Advice as to what?

(good lawyers get the prelim stuff out of the way :uhhuh: )

Does she want to pay for it or something?

She wants to know how much she'll have to pay, because she thinks the $2900 is a touch stupid.

 

[011]

Moonlight Sonata, Pro-Bono Law Student

Thursdays 8:30, Channel 9

Could it work? =P

 

[neo o]

Moonlight Sonata, Pro-Bono Law Student

Thursdays 8:30, Channel 9

Could it work? =P

If Moonlight was blond and looked as great in a mini-skirt and stockings as either of t he blondes off law and order (the German from the original series is my favourite), yes.

Serious thread though.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

(The usual disclaimer applies - my advice should only be relied on at one's own risk)

Very good for finding the relevant act. But let's get the facts straight:

1. B's dog is tied to a tree on public land.
2. A opens the gate to C's house.
3. C's dog runs out and attacks B's dog.
4. C was present at the time of attack.
5. B presents C with a bill for the injuries.

Now, who is the client we are trying to help? If it is A (the gate-opener), why is she worried? They gave the bill to C (the house owner) didn't they?

If Moonlight was blond and looked as great in a mini-skirt and stockings as either of t he blondes off law and order (the German from the original series is my favourite), yes.

Yes Southerlyn is sexy

 

[neo o]

(The usual disclaimer applies - my advice should only be relied on at one's own risk)

Very good for finding the relevant act. But let's get the facts straight:

1. B's dog is tied to a tree on public land.
2. A opens the gate to C's house.
3. C's dog runs out and attacks B's dog.
4. C was present at the time of attack.
5. B presents C with a bill for the injuries.

Now, who is the client we are trying to help? If it is A (the gate-opener), why is she worried? They gave the bill to C (the house owner) didn't they?

Yes Southerlyn is sexy

The house owner C, is worried and needs the help. A just feels guilty and yes, those facts are correct. I also want to know whether any money already payed to the vet would be recoverable (as said before, the owner paid $1,000 after being pressured by the vet, though the operation hasnt commenced yet).

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The house owner C, is worried and needs the help. A just feels guilty .

Oh

Well that's nice of A

But as for C, they must pay up. However it is somewhat of a predicament if you suspect that there is foul play and that the vet is trying to jack up the price.

C could always agree to pay the medical expenses for the injury but only on the condition that the dog was seen by another, independent vet I suppose.

 

[stamos]

(1) The owner of a dog is liable in damages in respect of injury (whether or not fatal) to another animal (whether or not a dog, but other than vermin) caused by the dog attacking or chasing it.

i'm sure that this isn't intended to give them a blank cheque

to get out of paying all this in full, i reckon you'd have to assert that the vet's charges are unreasonable and request that they get a quote from a different vet

if the whole dispute escalates, then it'd probably be tricky to get a hold of a quote proving that you're right about the unreasonable demands being put on person C

edit: that is, your best option is to be conciliatory and use common sense, try to avoid bringing the law into it

 

[Meldrum]

Wow. You law-students are nice. I mean, whose pro-Bono nowadays? I thought everyone hated U2.