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

221–230 of 493 posts

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

#221

Post by nicky0 »

e40 wrote: post #197
gnicholas wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver. Not sure how you can jump to that conclusion. A driver can probably assume that a dog being walked by a person, even near the road, will be controlled appropriately by the walker. The only time a driver could not reasonably assume this is where the dog is too large to be controllable by the person (kid or small adult) who is walking…

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.

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

#222

Post by [deleted] »

pdonis wrote: post #212
benatkin wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogs have been domesticated for millennia, and because of that, bringing them into an artificial environment is different than causing a wild animal to be in an artificial environment. There's absolutely nothing inappropriate about having a dog in an artificial environment. It's not the artificiality of the accident that's the problem, it's the harm that's the problem. The fault in an accident, be it car and car, car…

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by benatkin »

pdonis wrote: post #212
benatkin wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogs have been domesticated for millennia, and because of that, bringing them into an artificial environment is different than causing a wild animal to be in an artificial environment. There's absolutely nothing inappropriate about having a dog in an artificial environment. It's not the artificiality of the accident that's the problem, it's the harm that's the problem. The fault in an accident, be it car and car, car…

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

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

#224

Post by Fezzik »

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…

I love learning from my mistakes! I misread the preamble (for lack of a better word) to the Animal Welfare Act’s Federal website. It says it is the only Federal Law addressing animals... or the research of: https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act

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

#225

Post by ahje »

issa wrote: post #100

I realize this wasn't the point of the story, and I'm so sorry this happened to anyone's dog. But please do not buy dogs from breeders when there are plenty of amazing dogs waiting to be rescued at shelters.

My wife and I got a couple of rescue dogs a few years back. I hate to say it, but it is one thing we will never do again; there's simply too many mental issues with them after they've been subjected to whatever horrors they were subjected to before they were rescued.

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

#226

Post by nicky0 »

onion2k wrote: post #104
scott-smith_us wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain why wanting to hear both sides of a story gets an "OH COME ON!" from you?

We do have Wag's side of the story. They decided to only reimburse costs if a customer signs an NDA, and then they decided to revoke their offer when the customer refused to sign. Wag don't need to add anything more than that for us to know they care more about a very small amount of money than the dogs customers entrust to the care of the walkers they employ. To be honest the money is actually a small and distractin…

It seems you don't understand what it means to hear a side of a story.

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

#227

Post by Dylan16807 »

thatoneuser wrote: post #148
crowbahr wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps have the walkers be bonded as well? Even if it's 1k that's a pretty serious amount of money to lose, but low enough a barrier of entry that you still have people making a go at it. Obviously it gets returned to you when you close your Wag Walker account.

I don't think you understand how little these gig apps pay. 1k deposit would exclude a very large percentage of the workers. And frankly - who in the hell in their right mind would PAY a company a grand so start working for them? That's sketchy af.

> who in the hell in their right mind would PAY a company a grand so start working for them?

In order: A bond isn't paying them. It would ideally go to a reputable third party. Anyone that works for uber paid a whole lot more for that car, sometimes specifically for the job.

Edit: Would the downvoter care to explain? I'm not even saying it's definitely a good idea, I'm just disagreeing with the particular arguments given.

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

#228

Post by tallanvor »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #218
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> You killed someone's dog. This hits like losing family. Spoken like someone who's never lost family.

Having lost both pets and family (including my mother), losing a dog or cat is different but can absolutely be just as heartbreaking in its own way. Do not underestimate the bond people can have with a pet, and NEVER look down on them for reacting more strongly than you think they should.

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

#229

Post by B-Con »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #218
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> You killed someone's dog. This hits like losing family. Spoken like someone who's never lost family.

Having lost both a family member and close pets that were essentially family... it does make sense. Losing a pet is not the same as losing a human being, but... I can understand the analogy.

A pet may have been an active part of the family for a decade, participating in many of the same activities as the family from dinner time to family outings. Some pets are taken on specifically in times of emotional need, such as after losing a family member or in place of a child that can't be conceived. Such pets may not be actual humans but they do fill a role and fill a hole similar to one.

Again, not the same, but I can see circumstances where the analogy makes sense. And it's special when it does, this doesn't apply to every pet ever.

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

#230

Post by senderista »

mial wrote: post #202
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!

Yes. Also this > Sara and I will welcoming a new puppy from the same breeder in February—Rory Just go and get one from a shelter instead of encouraging animal breeding which is an unethical practice [0] [0] https://www.peta.org/issues/animal-companion-issues/pet-trad...

By the same logic, no one should have biological children as long as there are children in need of adoption. I think that's actually a defensible position, but it's a pretty extreme one nonetheless.
Post reply on HN