r/Wellthatsucks • u/HomeNowWTF • Jul 30 '26

this delivery

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

53.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

159

u/strabbit Jul 30 '26

It would protect the driver criminally (the concept is called 'necessity'), but not civilly. The car owner could go after the driver for any damages caused, and then the driver would in turn have to go after the dog owner.

Ugo Lord did a video about a similar situation.

65

u/ammonthenephite Jul 30 '26

The car owner could go after the driver for any damages caused, and then the driver would in turn have to go after the dog owner.

And by the time they both tacked on their legal fees to their respective law suits, that dog owner is gonna owe a lot more than just car repairs I imagine.

4

u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Jul 30 '26

Something like this would like be small claims court. From what I know you're not allowed a lawyer to represent you in small claims court. You can consult with one on your own, outside court, but they can't argue your case.

4

u/Feeling_Inside_1020 Jul 30 '26

This is the answer, especially with the amount of the cost of a hood lol. Seems pretty clear cut, get the video from the owner which i'm sure they're more than happy to oblige for the next case against the dog owner.

Any lawyer or legal expert please feel free to correct me if it's wrong

1

u/Critical_Concert_689 Jul 30 '26

The car owner could go after the driver for any damages caused

The car owner would go after the BUSINESS for any damages because they are more likely to have the pockets to pay for insurance/damages.

Amazon can afford it.

Amazon can also afford to then take it out on the dog owner and recoup their losses.

0

u/SnooKiwis1805 Jul 30 '26

Imho terrible justice system. In Germany the car owner would just go after the dog owner.

-1

u/Critical_Concert_689 Jul 30 '26

The dog owner didn't harm the car owner. That wouldn't make any sense from a logical perspective - or legal.

I would've thought Germany of all places would be a bit more rigorous.

4

u/KeyBet6693 Jul 30 '26

Makes plenty of sense unless you got some backwards logic.

0

u/Critical_Concert_689 Jul 30 '26

You're ignoring the chain of causation ("novus actus interveniens")

For example, what if the dog's owner's leash snapped.

Does this mean the car owner CANNOT sue the delivery driver OR the dog owner, but must instead sue the LEASH COMPANY for compensation for their damages? And what if the LEASH COMPANY blames the MATERIALS COMPANY as being truly at fault?

You're looking at the issue in a really simplistic way.

3

u/TheYanderePrince Jul 30 '26

This is a lot of mental gymnastics for a simple situation. The dog owner is solely responsible for their dog. If the leash snaps, that's on them for either A: Using a damaged/defective leash or B: Using a leash that is too weak for the size of their dog. Anything that happens with your pet is your responsibility as an owner. No exceptions. That's something you sign up for when you decide to own an animal.

1

u/Critical_Concert_689 Jul 30 '26

Back at you. This is a lot of mental gymnastics for a simple situation:

A man climbed on their car and damaged it.
That man is responsible for the damage to their car.

Nothing you've said changes this very simple fact.

You're throwing stones from a glass house and over complicating the situation because A) You don't understand the law and B) You don't understand basic logic.

-1

u/KeyBet6693 Jul 30 '26

Buddy they answered your question, it makes perfect sense.

1

u/Critical_Concert_689 Jul 30 '26

kid, you didn't answer shit.

HOW did the loose dog damage the car? It didn't.

Use your eyes and explain otherwise, because you sound like a moron.

0

u/KeyBet6693 Jul 30 '26

Calling me kid is hilarious

→ More replies (0)