TOTALLY GEEKED!

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

RE: Family Dog Dies Getting Groomed at Petco

huskerbb · Guru

Pets are property. Replacing damaged property IS taking responsibility.

if you wreck someone's car, you have to replace it. You don't have to pay for emotional distress no matter how much they loved that car.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of June 2015 05:07:31 PM

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

huskerbb wrote:
Pets are property. Replacing damaged property IS taking responsibility.

if you wreck someone's car, you have to replace it. You don't have to pay for emotional distress no matter how much they loved that car.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of June 2015 05:07:31 PM

There are lots of other damages involved in a car wreck - pain and suffering for example.

And while saying - here's $500 bucks, go replace your dog seems like taking responsibility- people are going to see it as callous and heartless.

cadiver · Senior Member

Here is a women that got $65,000 in Colorado for the death, negligence and emotional distress. Even from your link if the death is extreme particularly gruesome there could be additional awards.

Cruelty implies that pain and suffering must be involved. Even though animal cruelty is against the law and caries a criminal penalty, the pain and suffering of the animal is not considered relevant in civil court. However, if you are present and witness the event that causes the pain and suffering of your pet, or if the pain and suffering of the pet is found to be extreme and grotesque, you may be entitled to compensation for your own emotional trauma. In a few rare cases, if the person who caused the pain and suffering acted with extreme malice and obviously intended to inflict pain and suffering upon the animal, the courts will award punitive damages to discourage the behavior in the future.

-- Edited by cadiver on Thursday 4th of June 2015 06:37:24 PM

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

In a case like this, there does need to be more ramifications involved.

While you do sign a waiver, it covers basic things like falling off tables or getting knicked with the clippers.

This was plain out negligence.

huskerbb · Guru

cadiver wrote:
Here is a women that got $65,000 in Colorado for the death, negligence and emotional distress. Even from your link if the death is extreme particularly gruesome there could be additional awards.

Cruelty implies that pain and suffering must be involved. Even though animal cruelty is against the law and caries a criminal penalty, the pain and suffering of the animal is not considered relevant in civil court. However, if you are present and witness the event that causes the pain and suffering of your pet, or if the pain and suffering of the pet is found to be extreme and grotesque, you may be entitled to compensation for your own emotional trauma. In a few rare cases, if the person who caused the pain and suffering acted with extreme malice and obviously intended to inflict pain and suffering upon the animal, the courts will award punitive damages to discourage the behavior in the future.

-- Edited by cadiver on Thursday 4th of June 2015 06:37:24 PM

So, in other words, this woman is pretty much out of luck. She didn't witness it, the person who caused it didn't act with extreme malice or intent.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Pets are property. Replacing damaged property IS taking responsibility.

if you wreck someone's car, you have to replace it. You don't have to pay for emotional distress no matter how much they loved that car.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of June 2015 05:07:31 PM
There are lots of other damages involved in a car wreck - pain and suffering for example.

And while saying - here's $500 bucks, go replace your dog seems like taking responsibility- people are going to see it as callous and heartless.

Pain and suffering for the PERSON--NOT the property. The pet is PROPERTY. The car doesn't get pain and suffering. If the person who owned the car was not hurt, they don't get "emotional distress" because they are out of a car for awhile or because the car had a lot of sentimental value and they "loved" it.

Just because we may see our pets as more than property does not make it so. They are property in the eyes of the law.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of June 2015 10:04:18 PM

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

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Pets are property. Replacing damaged property IS taking responsibility.

if you wreck someone's car, you have to replace it. You don't have to pay for emotional distress no matter how much they loved that car.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of June 2015 05:07:31 PM
There are lots of other damages involved in a car wreck - pain and suffering for example.

And while saying - here's $500 bucks, go replace your dog seems like taking responsibility- people are going to see it as callous and heartless.
Pain and suffering for the PERSON--NOT the property. The pet is PROPERTY. The car doesn't get pain and suffering. If the person who owned the car was not hurt, they don't get "emotional distress" because they are out of a car for awhile or because the car had a lot of sentimental value and they "loved" it.

Just because we may see our pets as more than property does not make it so. They are property in the eyes of the law.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of June 2015 10:04:18 PM

The law is changing, husker. I know that is hard for you to understand - that the law can change, but courts do understand the unique type of "property" that pets are. And when someone has been maliciously or wantonly negligent, then a person can get damages for the emotional distress in most jurisdictions.

And no large national company wants this to go to Court, no matter if they could win or not. This is not just about the LAW, but how the public perceives it. It's a business that relies on the public to survive, so the court of public opinion very much matters.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Husker, you can argue all you want. But, what matters is what happens when they get before a Judge.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Pets are property. Replacing damaged property IS taking responsibility.

if you wreck someone's car, you have to replace it. You don't have to pay for emotional distress no matter how much they loved that car.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of June 2015 05:07:31 PM
There are lots of other damages involved in a car wreck - pain and suffering for example.

And while saying - here's $500 bucks, go replace your dog seems like taking responsibility- people are going to see it as callous and heartless.
Pain and suffering for the PERSON--NOT the property. The pet is PROPERTY. The car doesn't get pain and suffering. If the person who owned the car was not hurt, they don't get "emotional distress" because they are out of a car for awhile or because the car had a lot of sentimental value and they "loved" it.

Just because we may see our pets as more than property does not make it so. They are property in the eyes of the law.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of June 2015 10:04:18 PM
The law is changing, husker. I know that is hard for you to understand - that the law can change, but courts do understand the unique type of "property" that pets are. And when someone has been maliciously or wantonly negligent, then a person can get damages for the emotional distress in most jurisdictions.
And no large national company wants this to go to Court, no matter if they could win or not. This is not just about the LAW, but how the public perceives it. It's a business that relies on the public to survive, so the court of public opinion very much matters.

There is ZERO indication that this was done maliciously. Again, if you have other Virginia statutes, I'd be happy to look at them.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Husker, you can argue all you want. But, what matters is what happens when they get before a Judge.

You can argue all you want, but the law matters. That is what a judge will go by to decide a case. If a judge goes outside the law, then it will be overturned on appeal.

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

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Pets are property. Replacing damaged property IS taking responsibility.

if you wreck someone's car, you have to replace it. You don't have to pay for emotional distress no matter how much they loved that car.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of June 2015 05:07:31 PM
There are lots of other damages involved in a car wreck - pain and suffering for example.

And while saying - here's $500 bucks, go replace your dog seems like taking responsibility- people are going to see it as callous and heartless.
Pain and suffering for the PERSON--NOT the property. The pet is PROPERTY. The car doesn't get pain and suffering. If the person who owned the car was not hurt, they don't get "emotional distress" because they are out of a car for awhile or because the car had a lot of sentimental value and they "loved" it.

Just because we may see our pets as more than property does not make it so. They are property in the eyes of the law.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of June 2015 10:04:18 PM
The law is changing, husker. I know that is hard for you to understand - that the law can change, but courts do understand the unique type of "property" that pets are. And when someone has been maliciously or wantonly negligent, then a person can get damages for the emotional distress in most jurisdictions.
And no large national company wants this to go to Court, no matter if they could win or not. This is not just about the LAW, but how the public perceives it. It's a business that relies on the public to survive, so the court of public opinion very much matters.
There is ZERO indication that this was done maliciously. Again, if you have other Virginia statutes, I'd be happy to look at them.

I take it you missed the word "wantonly". Wantonly means carelessly or grossly negligent.

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

huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Husker, you can argue all you want. But, what matters is what happens when they get before a Judge.
You can argue all you want, but the law matters. That is what a judge will go by to decide a case. If a judge goes outside the law, then it will be overturned on appeal.

A judge wouldn't decide this case - a jury would.

huskerbb · Guru

Not if the judge throws it out.

huskerbb · Guru

Oh, and pets are no more "unique" than any other property.

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

huskerbb wrote:
Oh, and pets are no more "unique" than any other property.

Not according to case law. You can read statutes all day long - but the way they get interpreted in actual court is what matters. And there are lots of cases where the judges specifically talk about the special nature of pets.

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

huskerbb wrote:
Not if the judge throws it out.

If there is a question of fact, a judge can't throw it out, because questions of fact are solely within the purview of a jury. And there are lots of questions of fact in this type of issue.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Oh, and pets are no more "unique" than any other property.
Not according to case law. You can read statutes all day long - but the way they get interpreted in actual court is what matters. And there are lots of cases where the judges specifically talk about the special nature of pets.

Oh yes, I'm reading up on the ones you cited as we speak.