[Shalomboy]

This is true for bricks, but it is not true if your dog starts up your car and hits a pedestrian. Collisions caused by non-human drivers are a fascinating edge case for the times we're in.

[jacquesm]

It is very much true for dogs in that case: (1) it is your dog (2) it is your car (3) it is your responsibility to make sure your car can not be started by your dog (4) the pedestrian has a reasonable expectation that a vehicle that is parked without a person in it has been made safe to the point that it will not suddenly start to move without an operator in it and dogs don't qualify.

You'd lose that lawsuit in a heartbeat.

[direwolf20]

what if your car was parked in a normal way that a reasonable person would not expect to be able to be started by a dog, but the dog did several things that no reasonable person would expect and started it anyway?

[cess11]

Legally, in a lot of jurisdictions, a dog is just your property. What it does, you did, usually with presumed intent or strict liability.

[gowld]

What if you planted a bush that attracted a bat that bit a child?

[ori_b]

In the USA, at least, it seems pet owners are liable for any harm their pets do.

[Terr_]

Being guilty != Being responsible

They correlate, but we must be careful not to mistake one for the other. The latter is a lower bar.

[victorbjorklund]

I don’t know where you from but at least in Sweden you have strict liability for anything your dog does

[b00ty4breakfast]

I'm dubious, do you have any examples of this happening?

[freejazz]

Prima facie negligence = liability