Driving with a dog in your lap (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

It seems I'm seeing more and more of people driving with dogs in their laps - like in the driver's seat. I actually see this quite a bit with the school carpool dropoff - parents driving their kids to school with the family dog in the driver's lap. And a quick look at news articles seems that this is being noticed as a growing trend.

A survey by AAA and Kurgo sought to uncover the truth about how and why people drive with their pets, as well as any potential distractions their furkids might cause. The findings were interesting, to say the least; nearly 60 percent of respondents had driven with their pets in the last month, and 31 percent admitted to being distracted by their pet while driving.

Beyond potentially causing accidents, there are very real dangers to allowing a pet to sit on your lap. If a crash did occur, a small pet could easily be crushed by a deployed airbag, or thrown from the car and injured or even killed. In addition, an unrestrained dog can act as a missile during a crash. AAA notes that an unrestrained 10-pound dog, where the vehicle is only traveling at 30 mph, will exert roughly 300 pounds of pressure in a crash! So, imagine the devastation that can cause to your pet and anyone in his path.

It makes me think about two questions: (1) why does your dog need to ride in the damn car with you, and if it must, why is it in the driver's seat? and (2) isn't this somewhat unsafe, especially out on the main roads?

A quick look at state law seems that only two or three states have laws that in one way or another regulate dogs in the driver's lap. Hawaii outright bans it whereas the law against distracted driving in Massachusetts includes the example of having a dog in your lap. I think that in the event of an accident where the cause is unclear, the dog in the lap will be a problem if there's a good lawyer handling it.

The dangers of driving with a dog on your lap

The dangers of driving with a dog on your lap

www.nwfdailynews.com

 

[SWJJ]

It's unsafe, but so is eating while driving. I voted tacoes, but i could see how people could feel strongly about either other option.

If people would just use their damn blinkers I'd not care if they have a zoo in their lap.

 

[superchuck500]

It's unsafe, but so is eating while driving. I voted tacoes, but i could see how people could feel strongly about either other option.

If people would just their damn blinkers I'd not care if they have a zoo in their lap.

Eating what? Like a meal? Yeah - agreed, that's also unsafe. Certainly you shouldn't be eating something like sushi or a chicken-fried steak while driving. When it comes to throwing down a big mac while driving, the difference is you get to decide when to take a bite and after a few minutes, it's over. Whereas the dog is there the whole time.

 

[efil4stnias]

I know LA Legislature passed a "distracted driving" law a while back, but i think it really focused on cell phone usage while driving.

As with most anything in this state regarding law, guess we gonna have to wait til someone rear-ends someone else while having their dog jumping around their lap, nose out the window to get an answer.

but i agree, a good attorney will absolutely use this in the event there is not clear "liability". And if your insurance policy has a provision for "distracted driving" ( in lieu of say " cellphone use" ) then someone could be personally liable for damages.

 

[superchuck500]

I know LA Legislature passed a "distracted driving" law a while back, but i think it really focused on cell phone usage while driving.

As with most anything in this state regarding law, guess we gonna have to wait til someone rear-ends someone else while having their dog jumping around their lap, nose out the window to get an answer.

but i agree, a good attorney will absolutely use this in the event there is not clear "liability". And if your insurance policy has a provision for "distracted driving" ( in lieu of say " cellphone use" ) then someone could be personally liable for damages.

Do you know of auto-insurance policies that exclude liability coverage on evidence that the driver was distracted or even texting? That would seem to me to be contrary to public policy.

 

[antipop]

last week i saw a woman driving with a baby in her arms....the car seat was in the front passenger seat as well...not good choices all the way around

kenner, brah

 

[efil4stnias]

Do you know of auto-insurance policies that exclude liability coverage on evidence that the driver was distracted or even texting? That would seem to me to be contrary to public policy.

Not that im aware of, but i am in the business use side- not personal lines - so im not sure in that regard.

I dont think it has reached a point where companies have taken on a "higher volume" of claims arising out of "distracted driving" that would prompt them to add this exclusion. But i havent read discount insurers policies ( like a GoAuto or The General ) so not sure.

And even if they do have, if not spelled out, ambiguity in a policy NEVER favors a carrier in Louisiana lol.

 

[superchuck500]

Not that im aware of, but i am in the business use side- not personal lines - so im not sure in that regard.

I dont think it has reached a point where companies have taken on a "higher volume" of claims arising out of "distracted driving" that would prompt them to add this exclusion. But i havent read discount insurers policies ( like a GoAuto or The General ) so not sure.

And even if they do have, ambiguity in a policy NEVER favors a carrier in Louisiana lol.

Indeed. My first case out of law school - they handed this loser of a case that came down to UM coverage, it was a plaintiffs case which was rare for this firm but it was a family friend who had been substantially injured in a car crash. I found a small but interesting inconsistency and drafted a motion. The partners were like "Hey he's actually on to something here." Won on the coverage exclusion and about two years later, a substantial settlement came.

But my point on the distracted driver issue is that every state has a policy in favor of liability insurance - it is required for good policy reasons. If carriers could drop in distracted driving exclusions, that system would start to fall apart. They can raise rates on the insureds are who are cited for or otherwise evidence distracted driving but I think that excluding coverage (that benefits the injured third-party, not the distracted driver) would be a problem.

 

[Eeyore]

W

Eating what? Like a meal? Yeah - agreed, that's also unsafe. Certainly you shouldn't be eating something like sushi or a chicken-fried steak while driving. When it comes to throwing down a big mac while driving, the difference is you get to decide when to take a bite and after a few minutes, it's over. Whereas the dog is there the whole time.

What about something messy like a chiliwich?

 

[efil4stnias]

But my point on the distracted driver issue is that every state has a policy in favor of liability insurance - it is required for good policy reasons. If carriers could drop in distracted driving exclusions, that system would start to fall apart. They can raise rates on the insureds are who are cited for or otherwise evidence distracted driving but I think that excluding coverage (that benefits the injured third-party, not the distracted driver) would be a problem.

so then my question- if there is an actual law to prohibit dog on lap, would that still be contrary to " public policy" ? ( allowing carriers to insert an exclusion )

 

[superchuck500]

so then my question- if there is an actual law to prohibit dog on lap, would that still be contrary to " public policy" ? ( allowing carriers to insert an exclusion )

There's all sorts of laws regulating driving - I'd venture the guess that a very high percentage of auto-liability claims come with some violation/citation by the insured driver, whether it be failure to yield, failure to maintain control, etc.

It doesn't impact liability coverage.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

My favorites are the ones who flex so hard about their luxury car they drink coffee from open ceramic mugs
We get it Sally, y’all rollin

 

[superchuck500]

My favorites are the ones who flex so hard about their luxury car they drink coffee from open ceramic mugs
We get it Sally, y’all rollin

Yeah, that's wild. I literally can't have coffee in the car without spilling it - it could be in the container they keep in the Hope Diamond in . . . it's getting spilled.

 

[DavidM]

It's unsafe, but so is eating while driving. I voted tacoes, but i could see how people could feel strongly about either other option.

It's unsafe for the driver and anybody else who could be involved in an accident, but it's also needlessly putting the dog in a very unsafe situation. Even a fairly minor accident that causes the airbag to deploy could cause injury or death. Awful decision.

 

[efil4stnias]

It's unsafe for the driver and anybody else who could be involved in an accident, but it's also needlessly putting the dog in a very unsafe situation. Even a fairly minor accident that causes the airbag to deploy could cause injury or death. Awful decision.

eventually someone will sue Kia/Hyundai

( and this thread will BLOW UP ) tee hee