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 and pedestrian, car and cyclist, cyclist and pedestrian, cyclist and cyclist, or even pedestrian and pedestrian, doesn't necessarily mean moral culpability. 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.
> 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, well, guide them.
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.
> I think it's debatable whether calling the dog or the owner the tortfeasor makes more sense
No, it's not. A tortfeasor has to be a person. Dogs are not legally persons, so they can't be tortfeasors.
> while the owner is responsible
Yes, exactly--just as any other tortfeasor is responsible.
> there's some simplicity in saying that the dog broke the rule of the road that lead to the accident.
You could say the dog "broke" the rule in the sense that it moved its body in a way that the rule prohibits; and in a mundane description of the facts of the accident, yes, that's what you would do. But the dog is incapable of understanding the rule in the first place, so the owner is responsible for training it appropriately (or, as I would imagine is much more common these days, keeping it on a leash and exercising reasonable prudence in controlling the dog).
> Since, as you admit, dogs lack agency, they are incapable of choosing to do something else
To drive this point home, a pigeon dive bombing your windshield in the middle of an intersection could be correctly caused the cause of an accident. The pigeon is a free bird. It has no custodian.
Pets, on the other hand, are always in someone's custody. Custody relationships are complex, but ultimately come down to "you're responsible for this." Anything a dog could do to harm itself or others could have been anticipated, should have been anticipated and is ultimately the custodian's fault.
If a pet owner is walking a dog on a leash but isn't watching the dog's every step because she's also holding her child's hand, and someone runs a red light and hits and injures the dog, causing thousands in medical bills, that's a very different insurance situation from a pigeon.
The pigeon is a nonentity in the accident. It's as much at fault, or not, as a tree. And it doesn't need medical or cremation bills paid. Cleanup is handled about the same way as debris from a car.
In a situation where the dog or owner isn't negligent but the driver is, it's useful to talk about whether the dog was on the leash, in the crosswalk, has right of way, is walking with the walk signal on, and is visible. You might prefer to leave the dog out of it and talk about the owner, but I could see myself wanting to get straight to the point and talk about the dog. I imagine lawyers also might be inclined to cut to the chase and talk about whether the dog was following the rules of the road.
> In a situation where the dog or owner isn't negligent but the driver is, it's useful to talk about whether the dog was on the leash, in the crosswalk, has right of way, is walking with the walk signal on, and is visible.
All those things, as you say, can bear on the driver's responsibility (or the owner's responsibility, if, for example, the owner allowed the dog to go out into the street when the walk signal wasn't on). But that's part of the factual description of the case. It does not assign fault to the dog; if the dog did something like go out into the street when the walk signal wasn't on, that makes it the owner's fault, not the dog's.
Hmm, that's a very good point, that speaking of the mistake by the dog (which the dog didn't have any way of knowing better) in the factual description is separate from assigning the fault. I concede the point and agree that the dog is never at fault in an accident.
The only argument I have remaining is that while it's an incorrect statement, I don't think saying the dog is at fault in an accident is insulting, because being at fault in an accident is often only an honest mistake (albeit sometimes with tragic consequences).
The fault in an accident, be it car and car, car and pedestrian, car and cyclist, cyclist and pedestrian, cyclist and cyclist, or even pedestrian and pedestrian, doesn't necessarily mean moral culpability. 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.