TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Family Dog Dies Getting Groomed at Petco

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

That is horrible.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I took my dog to PetSmart once. Now he gets groomed at our vet.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

That's terrible.

But who else was there? They had to know she was leaving.

We use petco. Thankfully we have been very happy with them.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

I use Petsmart for grooming. Not impressed with the grooming area at Petco in my area. I do think the talent available to to hire is regional. In the north east we have no kill shelters and a lot of education about caring for pets. Our shelters get most of their animals from the south and Ca.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I like our petco grooming area. It's glassed all the way around. You can see in it from outside the building.

It's clean, well lit, well staffed. I haven't found a reason to complain.

-- Edited by lilyofcourse on Monday 1st of June 2015 06:05:11 PM

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

I use petsmart for nail clippings, but Pooch doesn't really require a lot of grooming. Sometimes if I'm feeling wealthy I'll get him bathed, but I usually just do it myself.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Caitlyn does most the grooming on Monster. But we take him every 3 months or so to get glands and ears and nails done.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Shouldnt there be some sort of timer on the heated cage that would go off when the allotted time was up? Shoot - my microwave won't stop beeping if I don't open the door after it runs. Seems like an easy fix.

Poor pooch. Poor family.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I'm sorry, and this is terrible and the groomer should be fired etc. But, I cannot understand saying losing a dog is "like losing a child". A dog is not a child. A beloved companion yes. A child, no.

Whenitrains · Member

Mellow Momma wrote:
Shouldnt there be some sort of timer on the heated cage that would go off when the allotted time was up? Shoot - my microwave won't stop beeping if I don't open the door after it runs. Seems like an easy fix.

Poor pooch. Poor family.

They said there was. The dryer should have turned off after 15 minutes. But it didn't. That poor dog.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

I am talking about a buzzer that won't shut up until someone opens the cage to get the doggy. Like my microwave has.

And yeah LGS - a dog is NOT a child. I hate people who say that. It makes me think they don't love their kids very much.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

You would think that the groomer is supposed to be in attendance until the dog is out of the dryer.

Fort Worth Mom · Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

Jupiter can't be caged.

We either take her to The Vet, for a bath and nail trim.

Or, we take her to the Pet Spa.

They don't cage her. At either place.

I'm so sad for that dog.

It shouldn't have to have died, so young, over a bath. cry

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Mellow Momma wrote:
I am talking about a buzzer that won't shut up until someone opens the cage to get the doggy. Like my microwave has.

And yeah LGS - a dog is NOT a child. I hate people who say that. It makes me think they don't love their kids very much.

A buzzer would drive the dog crazy though. How about posting an employee in the dog cage area at all times?

huskerbb · Guru

You can't sue for "suffering" on the part of the dog.

Any "cruelty" was unintentional, so any punishment will be a slap on the wrist, if anything.

The most she can get is the proven value of the dog and not have to pay the bill for grooming.

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

huskerbb wrote:
You can't sue for "suffering" on the part of the dog.

Any "cruelty" was unintentional, so any punishment will be a slap on the wrist, if anything.

The most she can get is the proven value of the dog and not have to pay the bill for grooming.

Not necessarily true. I don't know about the suffering part but if they go after their liability insurance for wrongful death or whatever term they want to use. They should get a fair some. Nothing huge but more than the value of the dog.

huskerbb · Guru

Lexxy wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
You can't sue for "suffering" on the part of the dog.

Any "cruelty" was unintentional, so any punishment will be a slap on the wrist, if anything.

The most she can get is the proven value of the dog and not have to pay the bill for grooming.
Not necessarily true. I don't know about the suffering part but if they go after their liability insurance for wrongful death or whatever term they want to use. They should get a fair some. Nothing huge but more than the value of the dog.

No. There is NO SUCH THING as "wrongful" death in the law when talking about pets. Pets are property in the eyes of the law. Liability is limited to value of the animal, and possibly some money they put into it.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lexxy wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
You can't sue for "suffering" on the part of the dog.

Any "cruelty" was unintentional, so any punishment will be a slap on the wrist, if anything.

The most she can get is the proven value of the dog and not have to pay the bill for grooming.
Not necessarily true. I don't know about the suffering part but if they go after their liability insurance for wrongful death or whatever term they want to use. They should get a fair some. Nothing huge but more than the value of the dog.
No. There is NO SUCH THING as "wrongful" death in the law when talking about pets. Pets are property in the eyes of the law. Liability is limited to value of the animal, and possibly some money they put into it.

You are forgetting cruelty to animals statutes. Those apply when you neglect an animal as well.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lexxy wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
You can't sue for "suffering" on the part of the dog.

Any "cruelty" was unintentional, so any punishment will be a slap on the wrist, if anything.

The most she can get is the proven value of the dog and not have to pay the bill for grooming.
Not necessarily true. I don't know about the suffering part but if they go after their liability insurance for wrongful death or whatever term they want to use. They should get a fair some. Nothing huge but more than the value of the dog.
No. There is NO SUCH THING as "wrongful" death in the law when talking about pets. Pets are property in the eyes of the law. Liability is limited to value of the animal, and possibly some money they put into it.
You are forgetting cruelty to animals statutes. Those apply when you neglect an animal as well.

I addressed that. It will amount to a slap on the wrist--and those are criminal charges which don't translate into a settlement for the owner.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Not necessarily. Why can't they file a mega lawsuit against Petco?

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Not necessarily. Why can't they file a mega lawsuit against Petco?

On what basis? There is NO provision in the law for a "wrongful death" or "pain and suffering" of an animal. They have no basis for such a lawsuit. It would be thrown out.

They are limited to the value of the animal plus possibly some proven expenses they have into it.

This is no different than a neighbor's pit bull attacking and hurting your cat. You can sue for vet bills and the value of the animal if it dies--you cannot sue for wrongful death or any pain and suffering on behalf of your pet.

Pets are property--they are not human.

On the criminal side, the law MIGHT pursue animal cruelty charges--but without intent, any punishment would likely be very minimal.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

On what basis? Their negligence in killing their pet.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Hey, we have all seen the most minute of lawsuits blow up into some huge financial judgement. This is as possible here as any of those.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

I assumed the pain and suffering she was suing for was her own, not the animal's.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
On what basis? Their negligence in killing their pet.

But the measure of their damages is limited to the value of the property Plus maybe a few expenses. Likely less than $1,000.

huskerbb · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
I assumed the pain and suffering she was suing for was her own, not the animal's.

www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/article_pets.html

If someone can copy and paste that article, that would be great.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
On what basis? Their negligence in killing their pet.
But the measure of their damages is limited to the value of the property Plus maybe a few expenses. Likely less than $1,000.

Says who? We seen ridiculous monetary judgments on all kinds of things.

huskerbb · Guru

The law, at least in most states. There could be an exception by state, but most states consider pets property, and you can't apply what you are asking to property--again, at least in most states.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
The law, at least in most states. There could be an exception by state, but most states consider pets property, and you can't apply what you are asking to property--again, at least in most states.

But gross negligence could allow for punitive damages. Petco does not want to litigate this because a jury would be sympathic.

Blankie · Guru

This is hitting close to home. This dogs looks just like my dog, and his name is almost the same.

Thankfully we did not just get him groomed at Petco. We go to Petsmart.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The law, at least in most states. There could be an exception by state, but most states consider pets property, and you can't apply what you are asking to property--again, at least in most states.
But gross negligence could allow for punitive damages. Petco does not want to litigate this because a jury would be sympathic.

True, they could settle. If it goes to court, though, they would win in most states--or at least the damages would be very limited.

huskerbb · Guru

Virginia law chapter 65, part 3.2-6585 considers animals to be property and limits damages to the value of the property.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Juries have a lot of leeway, though. Yes, they would likely be overturned on appeal, but not until after a lot of legal fees and a LOT of bad publicity. They want this to go away quickly.

huskerbb · Guru

Yes, they could settle, but on the other hand, they have deeper pockets to litigate than the pet owner. Juries can't go outside the law.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Yes, they could settle, but on the other hand, they have deeper pockets to litigate than the pet owner. Juries can't go outside the law.

Oh, this is so not true. Look up jury nullification.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Jury Nullification

A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nulification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.

See U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997).

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Now, in a civil case - the jury verdict will get tossed if it goes against the law but that's after the jury has already done what they have done and it has made headlines. But in a criminal case, the prosecution has no appeal.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Jury Nullification

A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nulification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.

See U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997).

??? That is a criminal proceeding.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Jury Nullification

A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nulification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.

See U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997).
??? That is a criminal proceeding.

It can also happen in civil proceedings. A jury gets to decide. Even in cases with over-whelming evidence in favor of one side, the jury can still decide for the other side. Juries have a lot of leeway and a judge will not overturn it unless there is no reasonable basis for it.

So, yes, the ACTUAL damages for a dog is very low b/c it is personal property.

But, damages for the owner's emotional distress due to gross negligence? A jury has a lot of leeway with that.

Punitive damages for gross negligence? - the jury has leeway with that, too.

MOST of the time in tort cases, the ACTUAL damages are the smallest part of the award.

huskerbb · Guru

Emotional distress is not awarded in such cases. Refer to my prior article.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Emotional distress is not awarded in such cases. Refer to my prior article.

That does not apply to all cases in all states, and the law changes all the time. Newer cases have awarded more and more over pets. If you were Petco, would you want to be the test case after you left someone's dogs under a dryer too long and left it there?

Even in the article you linked to, it acknowledges that the law is changing and more lawsuits will be brought regarding these issues.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Thursday 4th of June 2015 11:43:09 AM

huskerbb · Guru

Changing law is not retroactively applied.

huskerbb · Guru

And that's IF it changes. If you have differing Virginia statutes to cite, I would be interested.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Changing law is not retroactively applied.

It usually starts changing in the courts before it gets legislated. By lawyers who argue for the courts to apply the law differently. You've seen how the Supreme Court has changed rulings based upon the same rules of law just by changing the argument.

huskerbb · Guru

LOL!! Over a dog? This is NOT destined for the Supreme Court.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
LOL!! Over a dog? This is NOT destined for the Supreme Court.

There are other courts, husker, and they are also allowed to interpret the laws based upon differing arguments. That's what judges do.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
LOL!! Over a dog? This is NOT destined for the Supreme Court.
There are other courts, husker, and they are also allowed to interpret the laws based upon differing arguments. That's what judges do.

And they would overturn any large jury award--although it will never getbthat far. It will be thrown out before it gets any traction.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
LOL!! Over a dog? This is NOT destined for the Supreme Court.
There are other courts, husker, and they are also allowed to interpret the laws based upon differing arguments. That's what judges do.
And they would overturn any large jury award--although it will never getbthat far. It will be thrown out before it gets any traction.

Depends on the argument. And the judge.

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

Petco will offer a settlement to shut this up & most likely they will not be allowed to tell the public the amount of the settlement. This being front & center if it drags out to court will be bad for their reputation & business.

TOTALLY GEEKED!

Family dog died 'after Petco groomer left him in heated drying cage and instead went to her graduation'

RELATED ARTICLES

Share this article