11 minutes ago, malt25 said:

So you can have a laugh, 3,000 baht.

I realise compensation isn't a must and I don't feel offering something is nonsense. The sole purpose of offering "something" is purely & simply to keep the peace in our community. I understand the owners of the dog are responsible & are "trying me on" with request for compensation. I like living where I do & if it takes a very modest amount to keep everyone happy so be it. I don't have to agree with the idea of compensation, but sometimes compromise is the least  painful option.

OP, you are being too nice, too kind, and too considerate.  This is making your neighbour think you are weak and a pushover to get money out of you.

 

You are clearly a very nice person with a conscience and tried to do the right moral thing.  But, this is not the culture here to be like that.  Sorry, you have learnt the hard way.  It's always easy to think what you should have done afterwards, but there is no point in that now.

 

The owner has shown himself to be not a very nice person... so, if I were you I would just leave him well alone from now on.  Don't give him anything, don't even get into a conversation with the looser.  Don't worry yourself.... no one in your neighbourhood will think bad of you for this... in fact, they might loose respect for you if you pay up more money to the guy.

 

This kind of guy will now get into a bad mood, and kick up a bit of a fuss.. like a kid having a tantrum as they did not get their own way and don't want to be seem as a looser. But it will blow over very quickly once he realises he can't get his way.  If any police come (very unlikely indeed) just keep level head, act like you are not concerned about it, and tell them you may need to get money off the guy for damaging your motor bike.  

Don't pay a red cent. Setting a dangerous precedent. You weren't liable. Not only would no Thai pay compensation, most speed away if a dog gets hit. Worst case scenario, go down to the police station and let police decide. If the cops tell you you should pay some amount, tell them you want to consult with a lawyer first, and later tell them the lawyer said if they think you should pay, they should sue. No way, they'll pursue this. End of problem.

Send the owner a bill for your wheel alignment

edit: just reread you were on a bike.

Incidentally, none of the locals here stop if they skittle a dog, you've done more than enough. 

Edited March 20, 20197 yr by akirasan
i kan read

By law the dog owner would be responsible for any damage to your motorcycle.  Not you for the dog.  This is for animals that are not controlled/allowed to roam.

 

4 hours ago, cynicalmatt said:

Does the neighborhood have a top man you can approach?

 

 

Always try to use the village head as a mediator if possible

I wouldnt give the guy 1 satang. Tell him you will see him in court and will claim damages.

The OP was clearly driving too fast for the road conditions.

 

What if it had been a child that ran out into the road? If he couldn't stop or avoid a dog, he couldn't stop or avoid a child.

 

Not fit to be in charge of a motor vehicle.  Should be stripped of his driving licence.

4 minutes ago, Oxx said:

The OP was clearly driving too fast for the road conditions.

 

What if it had been a child that ran out into the road? If he couldn't stop or avoid a dog, he couldn't stop or avoid a child.

 

Not fit to be in charge of a motor vehicle.  Should be stripped of his driving licence.

The OP was clearly driving too fast for the road conditions.

clearly????

Where did the OP state his speed or even that he was driving fast?

What were the road conditions?

Where you at the scene of the accident or have you visited the accident spot?

How do you know more about this accident than anyone else, or is this just another case of a bar stool lawyer?

 

 

45 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

OP, you are being too nice, too kind, and too considerate.  This is making your neighbour think you are weak and a pushover to get money out of you.

Yes, my personal experience is that Thais - certainly here in Isaan - often mistake niceness for weakness.

 

And the rule amongst the peasants is quite clear (backed up, as I understand, by the law): You kill an animal on the road, it's now yours to do as you please with. If edible - a dog! (yum yum says my partner - put it straight in the boot of the car & go straight to the farm to cook it) or a whole cow - call up the pickup, then dinner for all the family.

You killed it accidentally now it has an owner

 

Had it bit you! i be dammed, or at least highly surprised  if the dog would have an owner then

 

Thainess 101!

 

4 minutes ago, Bert got kinky said:

The OP was clearly driving too fast for the road conditions.

clearly????

Where did the OP state his speed or even that he was driving fast?

What were the road conditions?

Where you at the scene of the accident or have you visited the accident spot?

How do you know more about this accident than anyone else, or is this just another case of a bar stool lawyer?

 

The mere fact that he killed a dog meant that he was driving too fast.  He was driving so fast he was unable to stop in time.  The dead dog is all the evidence that is needed.  QED.

 

And that he killed a dog meant that he could equally easily have killed a child.

 

Try engaging your brain before spouting nonsense.

I wonder if the dog had caused you to come off the bike and break your neck, or caused you to swerve and kill a child...then what??? Would the dog owner still be seeking compensation? The dog owner should be responsible any consequences of allowing their uncontrolled dog onto a public road..

@ OP,remember you got up this morning having backpain and limping slightly.You may have to go to the hospital for a very expensive treatment.Limp over to the dead dog owner and ask him how much he can pay,because you ran over his dog that was on a public road uncontrolled.

He may just change his tune.Also cough a lot while you are talking to him.

People like that should be beaten at their own game.

5 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

The mere fact that he killed a dog meant that he was driving too fast.  He was driving so fast he was unable to stop in time.  The dead dog is all the evidence that is needed.  QED.

 

And that he killed a dog meant that he could equally easily have killed a child.

 

Try engaging your brain before spouting nonsense.

 

The mere fact that he killed a dog meant that he was driving too fast.  He was driving so fast he was unable to stop in time.

 

That has to be the most pathetic argument that I have seen.

If that ludicrous statement were true then all accidents that ever occurred would have to be a result of speeding, as the driver in all cases was driving too fast to stop in time.

Do you believe that everyone who has an accident should lose their licence?

 

18 minutes ago, Oxx said:

The OP was clearly driving too fast for the road conditions.

 

What if it had been a child that ran out into the road? If he couldn't stop or avoid a dog, he couldn't stop or avoid a child.

 

Not fit to be in charge of a motor vehicle.  Should be stripped of his driving licence.

I hope that you are being ironic, it would be a shame to think you are deluded enough to be serious. 

As for the OP, you have already compromised your position legally by offering compensation; that amounts to a tacit admission you were in the wrong. However, it is likely the whole matter will blow over without recourse to lawyers.

Next time, when you are patently in the right, don't be rash enough to try to be kind. Remember, one of the first things an insurance agent will tell you after an accident is admit nothing, even if you think you were in the wrong - and in this case, from what you say, that doesn't appear to be the case - quite the contrary, the dog owner is at fault, not you. 

But this being Thailand, you will have to suffer the consequences of your original sin - being a farang in Thailand - but had you not offered 3000 Baht at the outset, I'd have expected you to be able to settle for a few hundred Baht eventually.

21 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

The mere fact that he killed a dog meant that he was driving too fast.  He was driving so fast he was unable to stop in time.  The dead dog is all the evidence that is needed.  QED.

 

And that he killed a dog meant that he could equally easily have killed a child.

 

Try engaging your brain before spouting nonsense.

That is an utterly ridiculous statement.

Firstly the dog could have never been in eyeshot if it ran out  from a drive directly under the vehicle.

Secondly, if everybody drove slow enough to be able to stop in case an animal ran out from a drive onto the road, we'd be driving in any built up area at less than 10km an hour. https://www.random-science-tools.com/physics/stopping-distance.htm

Follow your own advice.
 

Edited March 20, 20197 yr by rwdrwdrwd

39 minutes ago, Oxx said:

The OP was clearly driving too fast for the road conditions.

 

What if it had been a child that ran out into the road? If he couldn't stop or avoid a dog, he couldn't stop or avoid a child.

 

Not fit to be in charge of a motor vehicle.  Should be stripped of his driving licence.

I assume this is some sort of warped sarcasm ?  If not, I'll offer a factual description of the accident. I had just taken off from a small intersection. Both Sois minimal width, about 3 meters. As stated in the OP, I had travelled about 15 meters. The dog came scampering out of a blind driveway. The first I was aware of the dog is when contact was made. I didn't brake, no time. The bike came to a complete stop 1 1/2 meters from where the dog was laying on the road. My home is approx 100 meters from point of impact. Approx 50 meters from impact scene is another intersection, I always slow approaching this intersection as again blind, high fences- walls. Speed was in no way a factor. I'd go so far as to estimate the dog was travelling much faster than I.

I will agree with one point you make. If it were a child & not a dog, the impact would have still occurred.

 not your faultIts not your fault. Its not you fault. The law states no dogs are allowed to roam free unattended. You should have kept going. That is the thai way. Being a foreigner no matter how descent you think you maybe when there is an issue you are the enemy. Offer nothing and tell them to take you to court.

If it were me i would ask them for damages in return and actually process a court hearing for which it would never get that far. Dont let the police try and negotiate money for the dog owner. Ask for legal assistance if needed. They now have to supply a lawyer but police are ignorant, dont know laws so just twiddle thumbs and play ignorant. You did nothing wrong.

Ive killed many and my neighbours have killed mine. Ive never got a cent from dogs killing my dogs on my property, etc so why should this scum.

Yeh in Aus if it happened the owner would be in trouble. Makes sense but i guess thats the diference between a civilized society and a zoo.

If the owner can prove ownership (can they?) then IMO your were right to offer some compensation. If it was refused then shake your head sadly and slowly and calmly and repeat your offer. As others says above I don't think police will be interested if you accidentally collided with a dog roaming the streets. I ran over a young dog running straight across the road after dark. A soi dog, in the middle of nowhere but where strays live and have puppies. In three years it's my only dog road death, but it's always a possibility no matter how you drive. It haunts me to this day. I hope you're OK.

2 hours ago, smutcakes said:

Of course you do....

Of course, I don't! You got it wrong I'm not the one who is representing Thailand and it's people! I think I have a greater love for the Thailand people than the police or government. If there was a chance for a foreigner to run for office I would and I know where I would start to clean house, second, it would be dreamers like you who have their head in the sand and that is being very kind.

If the dog is roaming on the road and you have damage to your bike, you can sue him.  Dog on a public road = owners fault; dog on owners land or right-of-way = your fault.  If it was on a public road, don't pay.

its such a shame that thai people mange to turn every situation into money, money ,money..

they think farangs are such an easy target, with our "money trees" that make the money endlessly available..

49 minutes ago, malt25 said:

I assume this is some sort of warped sarcasm ?  If not, I'll offer a factual description of the accident. I had just taken off from a small intersection. Both Sois minimal width, about 3 meters. As stated in the OP, I had travelled about 15 meters. The dog came scampering out of a blind driveway. The first I was aware of the dog is when contact was made. I didn't brake, no time. The bike came to a complete stop 1 1/2 meters from where the dog was laying on the road. My home is approx 100 meters from point of impact. Approx 50 meters from impact scene is another intersection, I always slow approaching this intersection as again blind, high fences- walls. Speed was in no way a factor. I'd go so far as to estimate the dog was travelling much faster than I.

I will agree with one point you make. If it were a child & not a dog, the impact would have still occurred.

Forgot something in your reply!  Dog or Child, who is watching the store or the owner of the dog allows his children to run wild as well?

8 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

Of course, I don't! You got it wrong I'm not the one who is representing Thailand and it's people! I think I have a greater love for the Thailand people than the police or government. If there was a chance for a foreigner to run for office I would and I know where I would start to clean house, second, it would be dreamers like you who have their head in the sand and that is being very kind.

How about staying on topic guys? 

 

I like dogs in general so sorry when  a dog gets run over.    I definitely hold the dog's owner responsible for negligent care.

 

I wonder if the dog became a highly rare pedigree upon its death?

 

 

One time when driving from our house going thru the village to the main road, I hit a free-range chicken from a group that ran across the road.  In the rearview mirror, I saw a man pick it up.  My wife said we should stop and offer 20 baht. I laughed and told her the only chicken I was paying for was at Big C or KFC and not the one he was going to eat for supper.

3 hours ago, malt25 said:

Thanks for most of replies so far. I haven't parted with any cash so far, just offered. I should mention that my next door neighbour who translated for me yesterday after the accident is Immigration police. His parting words as he left for work this morning.... "if anyone comes to talk to you about the dog, have them call me or come & see me tonight."  At this stage, if compensation is a MUST.. I'm thinking of offering to buy them another dog & not offering cash. I feel what they are asking is over the top even for a "good dog".  I'll keep you all posted.

If it was  a cow you would  be the one asking for  compensation ! Thai law.

What difference  a  dog? 

Your  only  responsibility  in the event was  to  prevent suffering. Dead dog. Finish of responsibility.

Why did you pay compensation? The dog should not have been loose! I would be checking my tyres for teeth marks or nicks from its skull to make sure I was compensated. You should try to get some cash for PTSD.

Thank you anyway for removing one useless canine from the streets, pity more of them didn't go the same way on a regular basis.

What kind of bike have you got? I really would not like to whack a dog on a motorbike, lucky you never came off.

While you're at it, there is plenty more out there that need the same treatment - that's dogs not neighbours. 

3 hours ago, malt25 said:

So you can have a laugh, 3,000 baht.

I'm not laughing, 3000 baht doesn't seem like a lot, if someone killed my kids puppy. Just saying.

 

2 hours ago, Oxx said:

The OP was clearly driving too fast for the road conditions.

.....

Not fit to be in charge of a motor vehicle.  Should be stripped of his driving licence.

By this twisted logic, the whole darn country should be stripped of driving privileges! ????

 

2 hours ago, Oxx said:

The mere fact that he killed a dog meant that he was driving too fast....

Try engaging your brain before spouting nonsense.

Are you trying to be funny? Doesn't matter, serious or not, you are embarrassing yourself.