Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 493 posts

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#241

Post by pdonis »

benatkin wrote: post #223
pdonis wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dogs are never culpable because they lack agency, but considering them to be at fault in an accident for the purposes of determining recourse isn't too far-fetched. Yes, it is, because "at fault" means "could have chosen to do something else that would have prevented the accident". Since, as you admit, dogs lack agency, they are incapable of choosing to do something else. The human that is guiding them needs to, we…

Being to blame for having intentionally done something morally wrong is not the same as being at fault in an accident. Police offers, lawyers, and judges will often make that very clear. I just learned of the term "tortfeasor". https://injury.findlaw.com/car-accidents/fault-and-liability... I think it's debatable whether calling the dog or the owner the tortfeasor makes more sense when the dog is loose, because while…

> I think it's debatable whether calling the dog or the owner the tortfeasor makes more sense

No, it's not. A tortfeasor has to be a person. Dogs are not legally persons, so they can't be tortfeasors.

> while the owner is responsible

Yes, exactly--just as any other tortfeasor is responsible.

> there's some simplicity in saying that the dog broke the rule of the road that lead to the accident.

You could say the dog "broke" the rule in the sense that it moved its body in a way that the rule prohibits; and in a mundane description of the facts of the accident, yes, that's what you would do. But the dog is incapable of understanding the rule in the first place, so the owner is responsible for training it appropriately (or, as I would imagine is much more common these days, keeping it on a leash and exercising reasonable prudence in controlling the dog).

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#242

Post by black-tea »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #233
usr1987 wrote: post #194

You should never be a dog owner. If you can't be there for them, you do not have them. I feel sorry for the dog, not you!

Nobody can provide 24/7 care, so I hope your judgement is that nobody should be a dog owner. Otherwise you're just being a judgmental jerk.

You should have enough time to take the thing out of your house a couple of times a day.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#243

Post by pdonis »

benatkin wrote: post #235
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since, as you admit, dogs lack agency, they are incapable of choosing to do something else To drive this point home, a pigeon dive bombing your windshield in the middle of an intersection could be correctly caused the cause of an accident. The pigeon is a free bird. It has no custodian. Pets, on the other hand, are always in someone's custody. Custody relationships are complex, but ultimately come down to "you're r…

If a pet owner is walking a dog on a leash but isn't watching the dog's every step because she's also holding her child's hand, and someone runs a red light and hits and injures the dog, causing thousands in medical bills, that's a very different insurance situation from a pigeon. The pigeon is a nonentity in the accident. It's as much at fault, or not, as a tree. And it doesn't need medical or cremation bills paid.…

> In a situation where the dog or owner isn't negligent but the driver is, it's useful to talk about whether the dog was on the leash, in the crosswalk, has right of way, is walking with the walk signal on, and is visible.

All those things, as you say, can bear on the driver's responsibility (or the owner's responsibility, if, for example, the owner allowed the dog to go out into the street when the walk signal wasn't on). But that's part of the factual description of the case. It does not assign fault to the dog; if the dog did something like go out into the street when the walk signal wasn't on, that makes it the owner's fault, not the dog's.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#244

Post by Dylan16807 »

black-tea wrote: post #242
Dylan16807 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody can provide 24/7 care, so I hope your judgement is that nobody should be a dog owner. Otherwise you're just being a judgmental jerk.

You should have enough time to take the thing out of your house a couple of times a day.

Maybe you do! But you also want the dog to get a walk in the middle of the workday.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#245

Post by throwaway713 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #215
idontpost wrote: post #7

Incredibly stupid decision to respond this way by Wag. How bad to you have to be at PR to screw this up? It's not hard. Liability in the case of harmed pets is extremely limited, so you just pay it all and apologize profusely. There's no way the bad press will be worth saving a couple thousand maximum. Absolute idiots.

> Absolute idiots Agreed. You do three things in a crisis: 1) Acknowledge the problem. You killed someone's dog. This hits like losing family. "We're opening an investigation" is a chickenshit message. 2) CEO needs to speak. Personal call from the top. If a dog is seriously injured or killed while on your watch, the CEO must make the call. This shows seriousness to the customer. It also ensures top brass feels the pa…

There was a comment that is now removed that said:

> Spoken like someone who's never lost family.

in reply to the parent's comment that said:

> You killed someone's dog. This hits like losing family."

My comment will probably be flagged as well, but fine, I'll sacrifice some karma to show my support. I lost my mother due to cancer when I was eleven and I personally find it offensive when someone tells me they know "what it is like" because they lost a pet.

Sure, there are people who have horrible family members that mistreated or abused them, so the loss of a dog means more than the loss of that relative, but if you're going to claim that it is comparable to lose a human being that meant everything to you because an animal died, then we just have a totally different set of moral axioms and are fundamentally incapable of seeing the world in the same way.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#246

Post by gnicholas »

nicky0 wrote: post #221
e40 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost like people with an agenda have come here to comment. The GP blames the driver and another blames the dog. Without knowing any details. This is very fishy.

But being Amreica, someone has to be to blame. It can't just be an unlucky accident of circumstances.

The author wrote the post because of the company's post-accident behavior, not because there was an accident. His point is that Wag isn't sharing information about what happened, or what parties are involved. Without this information, the author is completely helpless. And the only way to get anything from Wag is to pre-emptively forego all recourse, including sharing his story. This is the primary focus — not on the mere fact of the accident.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#247

Post by james_s_tayler »

masonic wrote: post #159
james_s_tayler wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can respect that. You want to maximize the likelihood the dog survives. I call this "The Hard Problem of Delineation". You can't delineate between who will and won't kill your dog no matter what system you use. That's the problem. Though I take your point about the cold, uncaring, capitalist dog walker. Hmmm. Edit: now that I think about your point I can see what you mean. The "sharing economy (Uber for X)" has bec…

You want to maximize the likelihood the dog survives. Wag, however, has a huge financial incentive for the dog to die even if it could be saved, due to the cost differential between surgery and subsequent care vs. cremation cost.

Well in the case the dog has already been hit and is facing either death or the possibility of salvation by some means then perhaps I might agree that them sweeping our four legged friend under the proverbial rug might be, not necessarily the most moral course of action, but perhaps the most expedient.

The comment that you want to maximize the likelihood the dog survives was referring to the point of market entry after you have decided you want someone to sit your dog but haven't yet selected a provider. They certainly don't have an incentive for the dog to die in that case, unless we invoke a conspiracy theory that they actually also run the doggy crematorium and thus win twice on the deal. But that's a mildly absurb prospect.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#248

Post by masonic »

pdkl95 wrote: post #210
Fezzik wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The only Federal Law re animals is the Animal Welfare act, which only has to do with research animals. All 50 states have animal cruelty laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1368 18 U.S. Code § 1368 - Harming animals used in law enforcement (a) Whoever willfully and maliciously harms any police animal, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than 1 year. If the offense permanently disables or disfigures the animal, or causes serious bodily injury to or the death of the animal, the maximum term o…

And when does 18 US Code have any Nexus for the example situation?. Hint: not in the stated examples, outside Federal land.

Look up prosecutions under this code for the situation described, whether or not a conviction was won. I'm guessing the number will be about... zero.

Wherever you went to law school, ask about a refund.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#249

Post by benatkin »

pdonis wrote: post #243
benatkin wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a pet owner is walking a dog on a leash but isn't watching the dog's every step because she's also holding her child's hand, and someone runs a red light and hits and injures the dog, causing thousands in medical bills, that's a very different insurance situation from a pigeon. The pigeon is a nonentity in the accident. It's as much at fault, or not, as a tree. And it doesn't need medical or cremation bills paid.…

> In a situation where the dog or owner isn't negligent but the driver is, it's useful to talk about whether the dog was on the leash, in the crosswalk, has right of way, is walking with the walk signal on, and is visible. All those things, as you say, can bear on the driver's responsibility (or the owner's responsibility, if, for example, the owner allowed the dog to go out into the street when the walk signal wasn'…

Hmm, that's a very good point, that speaking of the mistake by the dog (which the dog didn't have any way of knowing better) in the factual description is separate from assigning the fault. I concede the point and agree that the dog is never at fault in an accident.

The only argument I have remaining is that while it's an incorrect statement, I don't think saying the dog is at fault in an accident is insulting, because being at fault in an accident is often only an honest mistake (albeit sometimes with tragic consequences).

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#250

Post by askmike »

nicky0 wrote: post #221
e40 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost like people with an agenda have come here to comment. The GP blames the driver and another blames the dog. Without knowing any details. This is very fishy.

But being Amreica, someone has to be to blame. It can't just be an unlucky accident of circumstances.

I don't agree: I'm not from the US and generally think everyone is over reacting with constantly (threatening) to sue everyone else.

But here the problem here isn't that the dog died, it's how Wag has handled the problem afterwards, and how their (poor) communication suggests that they didn't really do their due diligence in vetting the walkers.

EDIT: a similar thing happened in my country (the Netherlands) where an Uber driver hit (and killed) a young woman after driving around in circles (a technique used to get more clients apparently, instead of parking somewhere), and Uber immediately pulled the "he is not an Uber employee and he wasn't with an Uber customer when it happened, so it's not our fault card". which resulted in public outrage[1]. They could have just send some flowers to the family, now they got a PR crisis instead.

[1]: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/een-uber-chauff...

Post reply on HN