Suit By Man Whose Car Killed Dog Is Thrown Out


DULUTH, Minn. –- A judge threw out a suit Friday brought by a man whose car was damaged when it struck and killed a dog, after emotional testimony by one of the defendants, a co-owner of the late miniature pinscher.

Fester, a 13-pound dog was killed instantly on Jan. 4 near the city of Cloquet when hit by Jeffery Ely’s 1997 Honda Civic. Fester squeezed past owner Nikki Munthe as she was letting in her other dog and ran onto the road.

Ely sued the Munthe family for about $1,100 for damage to his car, time taken off from work to address repairs and court fees.

Both sides represented themselves, and neither could prove negligence by the other, so Judge Gerald Maher dismissed the case.

“You don’t have a legal cause of action,” Maher said. “You never should have been here.”

When Fester ran, Munthe says she yelled at him to come back, her cries intensifying when she saw Ely’s car headed straight for him. Ely says he didn’t see the mostly black dog until it was too late to slam on his brakes. After hitting Fester, Ely used his car’s headlights to help find his body.

“He killed our dog,” Munthe told the court. “Our dog had a soul. His car didn’t. His car is repairable. A soul is not.”

The judge also dismissed the Munthes’ countersuit for $2,400 for time missed from work, as well as costs to cremate Fester and buy a replacement dog.

Cloquet imposes leash laws, but they wouldn’t apply in this case because the Munthes live outside city limits. The code is intended for people walking their dogs, said Cloquet Police Chief Wade Lamirande, and say that no person should permit an animal to run at large.

Because the Munthes did not intend Fester to run outside unleashed, Lamirande said the code probably wouldn’t apply even if they lived within city limits.

Ely says he doesn’t plan to appeal. He told the Duluth News Tribune that all the media attention the case has received has ruined his reputation.

“The dog shouldn’t have been there,” he said. “Roads are for cars, not for dogs.”

Tell us what you think about “Suit By Man Whose Car Killed Dog Is Thrown Out” below. Share your favorite videos by clicking on the ZootooTV tab. Send us your story ideas by e-mailing us at news@zootoo.com or by calling us at 877-777-4204.

The Associated Press and The Duluth News Tribune contributed to this article.

Bookmark & Share: Newsvine Newsvine  Digg Digg  Del.icio.us Del.icio.us  Reddit Reddit


Tags


How do you like this article?

100%, 1 out of 1 user thumbed up.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down

Discuss this topic

Comments



125 comments found.
 
ChicoianVolenteer
ChicoianVolenteer
3 weeks ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
What a tragic accident, but this is not a court case, the man should have never sued.
 
What an emotional rollercoaster. When people think with their emotions, everything gets taken out of context. The man did not "kill" the dog. The dog (which, as the article clearly states, was mostly black and very small) ran into the road. Therefore, like in car/deer accidents, the dog hit the car. I know this sounds cold-hearted, but it is simply a fact. If you tell your insurance company that you hit a deer, you will be at fault. Tell the insurance company that a deer ran out into the traveled portion of the road and hit your car, which is the truth. You did not "kill" the deer any more than the man (who, by the way, used his car's headlights to help locate the dog's body after it ran out into the road) "killed" the dog. It was an accident, which is why they're called accidents. One piece of information that was not mentioned was if there had been a history of one or more of her dogs getting loose. Stuff happens. I have several people in my neighborhood whose dogs just "get loose" all the time. The real reason is that the owners don't clean up after their pets, so having Fido poop in other people's yards eliminates the need to clean up or step in Fido's poop in their own yard. Sure, sometimes pets do get loose, but "habitual offenders" (including those that deliberately let their pets out to use the neighborhood for their bathroom) should be viewed differently. I'm really sorry the woman's dog died, but she's apparently replaced it and was countersuing to make the other accident victim pay for the new dog. Again, it was an ACCIDENT. The man did not drive into her yard and deliberately hit the dog. Before jumping to any conclusions, that fact should be kept in mind. The judge's decision was fair. Neither side could prove negligence.
 
I bet this idiot will have a pretty hard time finding a date anytime soon.........What a jerk!
 
WANSTREET
WANSTREET
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
He ruined his own reputation by sueing. What a waste of time & money for all involved. Insurance is required when you are driving and the purpose of insurance is for ACCIDENT coverage.
 
betty p.
Flag this comment | Good Point | 1 user liked it.
Reply
How much damage could this dog have done. A min pin at 13 pounds. I can not even believe that the dog could have reached any part of the car but the tires which are on the ground.

The whole thing was an accident. I am sure he has car insurance, use it. And I could see his reputation being ruined. It sounded like he was a jerk to sue.

This country is "sue happy" and personally, I am sick of it.
 
Cassie G.
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
I don't think this should have ever gone to court.
 
Kathleen
Kathleen (mewlkitten)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
That is crazy, and I would not have ever given the man money for his car when he killed my dog.
 
JOMAMA1
JOMAMA1
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
Well,it isn't like he drove into her yard to kill the dog.The dog was out in the road.
 
kjungb
kjungb
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
it doesn't mention how fast this guy was driving, if he was driving over the speed limit then it would be a violation of the law. it was ridiculous that this case even went to trial, i'm sure the judge was quite annoyed with this "case".
 
Alex C.
Alex C. (tushababy)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
I agree that it should have been thrown out. First of all it sounds like a total accident. You can't help it when your pets get past you every once in a while. The guy shouldn't have sued them for damages to his car and everything else he sued for espessially when it was a tiny dog that probably did little to no damage. It just sounds like an accident.
 
sunnyranch
sunnyranch
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
How much did the poor little dog weigh????
 
Mary G.
Mary G. (Norton)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
Personally I think Mr. Ely was a total jerk for being so insensitive to the Munthe family after running down and killing their little dog. Moreover, the Munthe family could not have been too broken hearted when they decided to counter sue Mr. Ely for the costs of cremating Fester AND money to buy a replacement dog. People never cease to amaze me!
 
debbie w.
debbie w. (debz27)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
I have never hit a dog and I pray it never happens, but if I did the last thing on my mind would be sueing the owner. I would be as upset as the owner, It would break my heart.
 
Carly67
Carly67
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
Both sides are wrong if you ask me. The car guy should be feeling bad and let the family deal with a loss instead of a court date. The dog lady wants money for a 'replacement dog." Both sides should just accept this as an accident and leave it as that. Accidents happen and going to court on this is just ridiculous.
 
wendy T.
wendy T. (breeze35)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
someone wanting money
 
april s.
april s. (april2007)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
Sounds like just another money hungry person trying to make a buck off a bad situation.. the poor dog, and the guts of that guy sueing them after their loss is just ridiculous!
 
thats aweful their dog was already hit and killed he should have felt bad and not have tried to sue.
 
Rainie
Rainie (RainieA)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
You know, the comment that if the incident happened in the city, that they could not use the leash law in this case because the owners did not intend the dog be outside unleashed doesn't make sense.

If someone owned a big dog that bolted out the door by accident and then bit someone, then I am sure the leash law would come into play whether or not the owners intended the dog to run outside unleashed. I think most of the time, these incidents happen as a result of the dog sneaking out the front door or yard, or running loose without the owners intent.
 
Rainie
Rainie (RainieA)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 1 user liked it.
Reply
If you've ever seen a Honda in an accident, you would know that it crushes like a soda can on impact. This guy's 1997 Honda probably did get damaged from the 13 lb dog impacting it. And, if you own a Honda, you know what a rip off the replacement parts can be. I kinda understand how the car owner feels.

The dog owners, should have leashed their two little doggies for safety. These guys probably hold the dogs in their lap and let them roam unfettered in the vehicle while they drive. Were these dogs obedience trained? Did they ever listen to the owners in the first place? If the dogs were trained well, then this all wouldn't have happened. It is sad for the dog that died that he didn't have more responsible owners.

I still think the dog owners should pay for the cost of the damage to the car. I don't think the car driver should pay for a replacement dog (which just goes to show you how little they actually cared for the one that died). It was their fault why the dog was killed in the first place.
 
Corey A.
Corey A. (corey240)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 1 user liked it.
Reply
I have to agree, as I used to have a Honda. Even a basketball can make a dent in it. The dog might have been running full speed, so it could have been tossed up or thrown by the bumper. If the dog was so short only the tires could have reached it, then he would have ran over the dog, not bumped where the dog's body went flying someplace.

It isn't the same as a pedestrian. I think we all agree that a pedestrian is a lot bigger and visible than a min pin, and also a pedestrian should know better and what to do when a car is coming at them. A little dog doesn't have a clue, and I think maybe they have that same problem that birds do, where they can't see the depth perception of a vehicle coming closer until it is too late.

I think it is really silly that the driver wanted to repair his 1997 Honda. It's not even a new car! I can see if he took really good care of it and it was immaculate.
 
JOMAMA1
JOMAMA1
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 1 user liked it.
Reply
I agree with Rainie.The driver is NOT responsible for the dog's death,period!If he hit a cow that broke out of it's fence,you can bet that rancher would be held fully responsible for any damages!I don't see the difference here,either.
 
Tobybones
Tobybones
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
You must drive a Honda. I doubt that this little dog even reached the bumper! This should have never made it to court.
 
Sorry, but I must dissagree. When a motorist hits something, such as a pedestrian, I've never heard of the pedestrian having to pay for the damages to the car. Now, maybe the pedestrian could have been more careful, but seeing as the vehicle is considered a potential lethal weapon, a greater amount of responsibility is directed to the drivers to make sure they are driving carefully. And sometimes, no-matter how careful, accidents can still happen. . . . And sometimes an accident is not any more the fault of one party over the other!
 
Amy
Amy (Amy4422)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
This is a bummer for both sides. Its always sad to lose your companion animal. And its a bummer to have your car smashed up. AND I cant believe a min-pin would cause that much damage.

Seems like the driver could have just went to his insurance and had it all covered. Isn't that what you would do if you hit a deer? I mean, who's fault is that?
 
Rainie
Rainie (RainieA)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 1 user liked it.
Reply
I hear what you mean, but I wouldn't want my insurance rate to go up as a result of someone not securing their dog and it ran in front of your car.
 
kittypassion
kittypassion
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
I agree with the man who's car was damaged. Dogs do not belong in streets unless they have a leash and are crossing it with their owner. Sad this had to go to court.
 
clslay
clslay
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
In our state there is a leash law... period. Whether you intend for your pet to be loose or not. The owner is responsible for any and all damages to a car. I have 3 rescues, I dearly love my pets. All are indoor pets. However the law is the law. If the dog caused an accident, if the car was damaged I feel the owner was responsible for paying for damages. Heck a headlamp for my car is now over 150.00 for it and the trim. If a dog is hit and happens to fly up and hit the trim it could be costly. Part of being a owner is taking repsonsibility for your pet. Its sounds harsh but its the law. Its a lose lose case. Our are has just passed a leash law on cats as well. Its a sue happy society I will state and I think sometimes and most times people think they will become "rich" off of stupid lawsuits. However the driver did deserve to have his car repaired back to the state it was in prior to hitting the poor dog. Its a heart breaking story all way around.
 
Lucy R.
Lucy R. (Lminutolo)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
Good!! i'm glad the suit was thrown out! Jerk!
 
ourstaff
ourstaff
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
One word.... Insurance
 
Kim R.
Kim R. (kregan)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
Boy, those mini pins must be tough little beasts to cause that much damage. If I saw my animal run out and cause a wreck I think my natural inclination would be to pay for damages if I saw the driver had tried to avoid the animal. But those seem excessive. I think the owner of the loose animal has a lot of nerve to sue though. The trauma of hitting an animal is now on the driver's shoulders and is a damage too if he has any compassion. I still feel bad after hitting a big beagle who ran onto the interstate years ago. Never did find its owner to notify them.
 
dawn  h.
dawn h. (dawnt)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
What a waste of resources! That driver is a jerk and obviously has no feelings for the owners of the dog. I agree that the owners need to be more careful, but mistakes happen and it is not like they just let the dog roam the neighborhood or kept the dog chained outside or something. The guys insurance should cover part of the damage!
 
Kelly
Kelly (KellyJedlicki)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
This should have never made it to court - what a waste of time and money.
Accidents are not planned ......
 

"Ely sued the Munthe family for about $1,100 for damage to his car, time taken off from work to address repairs and court fees."

Are you KIDDING ME?! He actually tried to sue for $1,100 because HE hit a thirteen pound dog?

At the VERY least I could see the car damages. But time taken off for work?? What the heck is that?! What an absolutely self-centered jerk.
 
roberta m.
roberta m. (meanwife)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
exactly how fast do you need to be driving to have a 13 pound min pin do $1100 worth of damage to a car?
 
What a waste of court time. His reputations is ruined! How? He ruined it himself by acting like a jerk.
 
I was just thinking that same thing.
 
Karenopa
Karenopa
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
I can't believe this man...he won't file an appeal because the details of this case have already ruined his reputation. Well....I certainly hope he realizes it was all of his own doing. He never should have ever considered the suit to begin with. Shame on this man..he's obviously not a pet owner or he'd have understood how heartbreaking it is to lose a beloved pet. What a jerk!
 
Maria
Maria (acedogg2001)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
This Ely is an idiot. I'm glad his reputation was ruined, "roads are for cars". Are you kidding me. It's not like the woman intended to let the dog run loose. It was an accident. I feel bad for the family but people are just sue happy.
 
Teresa C.
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
This was an accident ... that's all. The people didn't intend for their dog to get loose and the driver didn't intend to hit the dog. It was an accident. Not a case for court ... I find it sad that our society is so letigious as to take something like this to court. We have car insurance for a reason. And it's sad that the pet died.
 
candicemarie
candicemarie
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
This is unfortunate but these things happen but why take an accident to court. Maybe next time the pet owner will have have a fence and or have their dogs on a leash so they will not run out into the road.
 
candicemarie
candicemarie
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
This type of thing is unfortunate but this happens all of the time I think it is rediculous to take something like this to court, but maybe next time the person will have a fence or the dog on a leash to keep it from running out in the road.
 
Joette B.
Joette B. (joettem)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
I have a tendency to be sympathetic to the pet owner in most cases. And I do feel bad that she lost her dog. However, suing for a "REPLACEMENT" dog is disgusting. Neither party should have sued. This was an unfortunate accident.
 
Karenopa
Karenopa
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
I'm sure that these people didn't even consider suing for a replacement dog until after this jerk of a guy first filed a suit for the damage to his car. All of this is a waste of the court's time.
 
Shirla S.
Shirla S. (sjschunke)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
sounds to me like someone should grow up here. people sue just to get something out of anyone. what a shame. Whats this world coming to. lol
 
terrae01
terrae01
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
Aside from the Pet issue of this article there is the issue of frivolous lawsuits. It is ridiculous that the car owner tried to sue the dog owners.
 
Sue G.
Sue G. (wingett)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
I would like to know what kind of damage a 13 pound dog could do to a car?
 
Beth I.
Beth I. (MEBI38)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
I would hate to see my dog killed right in front of me. This was a terrible accident. The car owner should get a life & move on. What a jerk!
 
judy b.
judy b. (jbonz)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
In some states, don't they fine people for filing frivolous lawsuits? If not, they should.
 
cody m.
cody m. (guppy89)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
This is crazy, what are people thinking now a days that makes them sue eachother over this kind of thing. The owner should have never thought about sueing because it was their fault (though an accident) that Fester got out and hit. And the driver of the car- I mean, really, how much damage can a Min Pin do? They both should have felt terrible, realized that it was an accident, and went on with their lives.
Reply very smart judge. i feel badly for both parties but more so for the people who lost ther dog. he may have to pay for his car but it is a machine not a living being. i hope he has some compasion for the people who lost their dog a living being
 
Christ...People will sue over anything. And shame on the party who lost the dog. They turned a terrible accident into a way to get money as well. Pay for the the "replacment dog". Thats disgusting.
 
Karen K.
Karen K. (toberpup)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
This is crazy, what are people thinking now a days that makes them sue eachother over this kind of thing. The owner should have never thought about sueing because it was their fault (though an accident) that Fester got out and hit. And the driver of the car- I mean, really, how much damage can a Min Pin do? They both should have felt terrible, realized that it was an accident, and went on with their lives.
 
daryl b.
daryl b. (darylob)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
very smart judge. i feel badly for both parties but more so for the people who lost ther dog. he may have to pay for his car but it is a machine not a living being. i hope he has some compasion for the people who lost their dog a living being
 
That guy has some nerve. I mean I hit a dog one time and it destroyed my car. But I was more concerned for the family than my car. Which ended up costing me 1200 in repairs. That is just so stupid people get way to sue happy.
 
Christine
Christine (kikgirl2)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
Wait, are you serious!? More sue-happy people... I can't believe this idiot had the nerve to try to sue a family who's dog HE hit and killed!!! What a moron.... you can't replace a life, but you can fix a stupid car.... wow. Glad it was thrown out.
 
Brea1
Brea1
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 1 user liked it.
Reply
I was under the impression that car insurance was for fixing a car after these kinds of accidents. If a deer ran out in front of him, who could he sue then? If the owner of the car only had liability insurance then that's his fault for not having enough coverage.

It was good that that the driver of the car stopped to help find the dog rather than just driving off. More than likely the high emotions after the accident is what caused this stupid lawsuit.

It sounds like a lawyer recommended that they sue for the cost of a "replacement dog". It just sounds like the kind of thing a lawyer would recommend as well as the whole counter-suit. The people who lost their dog probably wouldn't have initiated a lawsuit like this but were dragged into it.
 
llewell
llewell
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
Good point on the lawyer thing. I was uncomfortable when I saw that the family of the dog counter-sued. The initial suit by the driver was ridiculous, but then for the family to counter sue I thought was odd. But then grief and anger will make you do crazy things. It's really not possible to get a "replacement dog" is it? Not when you've lost a a part of the family. Sounds like they were going to a breeder, too. Sad for the poor little dog. Such an awful thing to happen.
 
rjlupinskat
rjlupinskat
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 1 user liked it.
Reply
“Roads are for cars, not for dogs.”

Really??? I'll keep that in mind when a child accidently runs out into the street and gets hit, and the driver wants to sue. Utterly ridiculous. He acts like the dog consciously decided he'd run in front of this guy, and that he'd just take over the road because he could. He was a DOG - they DO that sort of thing. Just like kids.

Great judge - he was fair and dismissed the whole the thing. It was a tragic event, but in this sue-happy world, it's good to see someone actually kept it all in perspective and not turn it into a money-making opportunity.

Condolences on the loss of the dog.
 
Amy U.
Amy U. (amujazdowski)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 1 user liked it.
Reply
this is a sad event and both parties should count their loses and move on. Neither party will be happy and will just continue to fight over where the dog should/should not have been and how the car should have stopped. At least the guy in the vehicle stopped and tried to help look for the body. The thing that stikes me as odd is the dog owners went out and bought a "replacement" dog. If their dog could be replaced so easily...then what's the big deal? Right?
 
rjlupinskat
rjlupinskat
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
That was something I was thinking, too. A 'replacement' dog? No such thing, really. Not if you're an animal lover. It's like getting a 'replacement' child.
 
rancentyre
rancentyre
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
Hmmm, that is a hard call; I do feel though if damage was caused to the vehicle the pet owner should be responsible, I find it hard to think a 13 pound dog caused $1100.00 in damage though!
 
rena t.
rena t. (rena28614)
2 months ago
Flag this comment | Good Point | 0 users voted.
Reply
How sad! If I hit someones dog I would not sue them over it! A car can be fixed but a lost life can never be replaced. It is so sad the family had to lose their dog and face a law suit by the man who killed it. I feel sorry for them.