So, ATOT- who should pay?

[Regs]

Originally posted by: waggy
Person A should

 

[ViviTheMage]

A

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: waggy
Person A should

Yup, but the owner will end up paying.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Officer B's department should pay.

The department poorly trains their officers and animals if they damage property in that way.


Then again, cops are NEVER held liable for this kind of stuff, so it is a moot point anyway.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Officer B's department should pay.

The department poorly trains their officers and animals if they damage property in that way.


Then again, cops are NEVER held liable for this kind of stuff, so it is a moot point anyway.

You're pretty ignorant there, buddy.


Or maybe you're just being a Sarcastic Dwarf.

 

[JDub02]

the car owner's insurance company. the owner's car was stolen and damaged.

since the person who stole the car was caught, i would think the owner's insurance company could go after "person A" in court for the damages. probably won't because it sounds like the damage was minimal (seat).

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
I don't get how anyone would consider it either PD's responsibility.

Because the PD are the ones that damaged the vehicle?

 

[Perknose]

The manufacturer of the plumbing supplies from which the drug pipe was fashioned should clearly pay. What were they thinking? :roll:

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
I don't get how anyone would consider it either PD's responsibility.

Because the PD are the ones that damaged the vehicle?

Cop was just doing his job. Can't sue the government. Dogs chewing up the seat is a reasonable outcome of a search and seizure. You don't think a judge will set a precedent that a cop must think twice about the safety of someone's furniture then to uphold the law, no?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
I don't get how anyone would consider it either PD's responsibility.

Because the PD are the ones that damaged the vehicle?

Yeah...in the course of carrying out a lawful investigation which resulted in two arrests.

Had nothing illegal been happening, and no arrests made, then I'd put the PDs on the hook. But that's not the case in this scenario.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
I don't get how anyone would consider it either PD's responsibility.

Because the PD are the ones that damaged the vehicle?

Cop was just doing his job. Can't sue the government. Dogs chewing up the seat is a reasonable outcome of a search and seizure. You don't think a judge will set a precedent that a cop must think twice about the safety of someone's furniture then to uphold the law, no?

It would appear we have different definitions of "reasonable"

 

[takeru]

officers: not responsible, they had consent
person b: his crack pipe
person a: gave consent and person b's crack pipe main cause for damage. dog wouldn't go crazy otherwise, try to recover from person b
car owner: end up paying for damages or his insurance, try to recover from person a

actually, you say they determined it was person b's crack pipe due to range of person. BUT, does the crack pipe really belong to person b though? either way, person a is the one mainly at fault for damages.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: takeru
officers: not responsible, they had consent
person b: his crack pipe
person a: gave consent and person b's crack pipe main cause for damage. dog wouldn't go crazy otherwise, try to recover from person b
car owner: end up paying for damages or his insurance, try to recover from person a

actually, you say they determined it was person b's crack pipe due to range of person. BUT, does the crack pipe really belong to person b though? either way, person a is the one mainly at fault for damages.

What kind of crack have you been smoking? It says marijuana pipe

 

[takeru]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: takeru
officers: not responsible, they had consent
person b: his crack pipe
person a: gave consent and person b's crack pipe main cause for damage. dog wouldn't go crazy otherwise, try to recover from person b
car owner: end up paying for damages or his insurance, try to recover from person a

actually, you say they determined it was person b's crack pipe due to range of person. BUT, does the crack pipe really belong to person b though? either way, person a is the one mainly at fault for damages.

What kind of crack have you been smoking? It says marijuana pipe

lol, my bad, marijuana pipe then

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: takeru

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: takeru
officers: not responsible, they had consent
person b: his crack pipe
person a: gave consent and person b's crack pipe main cause for damage. dog wouldn't go crazy otherwise, try to recover from person b
car owner: end up paying for damages or his insurance, try to recover from person a

actually, you say they determined it was person b's crack pipe due to range of person. BUT, does the crack pipe really belong to person b though? either way, person a is the one mainly at fault for damages.

What kind of crack have you been smoking? It says marijuana pipe

lol, my bad, marijuana pipe then

So whom is going to pay for the lost pipe?

 

[Kelemvor]

If Person B brought the drugs into the car, then I'd say he should pay.

Person A is responsible for paying the actual owner but person A should go after person B since it's his fault the drug dog got a hit.

 

[SmoochyTX]

Person A should be responsible for paying the owner for the damage. Then Person A should get the money back from Person B. If Person A doesn't want to pay, then the owner should just sue Person A in small claims court. Because none of this would have happened if Person A hadn't taken the vehicle without permission.

However, Person A probably wouldn't be able to sue Person B for the money since they were both actively involved in a crime (A for DWL and unauthorized use of a vehicle and B for drug possession). So Person A would have to use 'other' means to get his money back from Person B.

In the end though, it really doesn't matter if Person A had permission from the owner or not. Unless the owner knew that Person A was going to pick up Person B and that Person B was a probable or known drug user (or would probably have paraphernalia in his/her possession). But if that was the case, then the owner is stupid for giving permission. But, of course, that isn't the case.

 

[akshatp]

Person C should pay

 

[Instagib]

Person A and B should split the cost.