What should pet food manufactures pay if a cat or dog has kidney damage- is sick but does not die?
September 18th, 2009
Pets and owners suffer -shouldn’t pet food manufacturers suffer some too?
Unfortunately, pets are considered property, and under the law, you can’t be compensated for pain and suffering for the loss of property. So, the most that these corporations are going to have to pay is the veterinary costs. So sad.
Venice Girl
Unfortunately, pets are considered property, and under the law, you can’t be compensated for pain and suffering for the loss of property. So, the most that these corporations are going to have to pay is the veterinary costs. So sad.
September 18th, 2009 at 3:00 PMReferences :
Labrdogs Kennel
what they should do and will do is two different things. But at this point that is what a court will probably have to decide.
September 18th, 2009 at 3:39 PMReferences :
NuncProTunc
Well they should have to be responsible-if the law does not allow that then the law should be changed!
September 18th, 2009 at 3:57 PMReferences :
Bozema
Too soon to tell - they don’t even really know what the toxin is - they suspect melamine but don’t even know for sure. The manufacturers didn’t intentionally buy contaminated wheat gluten - it is going to take some time to sort this out.
The manufacturers certainly didn’t intend to poison dogs - so it’s going to take some time figure what to do. They are taking a monetary hit when people stop buying their products. The provider of the wheat gluten or even the grower may be the one at fault.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:40 PMReferences :
Jacqueline M
I think that they should be responsible for veterinary costs. There will most certainly be law suits filed in the near future.
September 18th, 2009 at 5:13 PMReferences :
Limestoner62
All vet bills should be covered - and the cost of food, since the food cannot be eaten, it is tainted and the food is responsible for the illness. That would be the minimum. I think you might be able to claim for transportation to the vet and for any time taken off work to get the pet to the vet.
September 18th, 2009 at 5:43 PMReferences :
Tirya
Cost of veterinary bills is likely all that can be compensated, unless it’s possible to prove that there is an additional monetary loss as a result of the dog’s/cat’s illness.
Hell, even when a feed producer ACKNOWLEDGES that they screwed up and that the food they produced was tainted with ingredients that shouldn’t have been there, you have to go to court to get blood from that turnip. Just ask anyone who lost alpacas to contaminated Land ‘O Lakes feed four years ago. Ironically, the LOL lawsuit just got underway a couple of weeks ago… just as the tained pet food recall was announced.
September 18th, 2009 at 6:01 PMReferences :
April
What should they pay? Well in a perfect world they should pay for all vet bills however without the complete loss of the pet I don’t think they will pay anything. If you do loose your pet they will pay to replace that pet. So if you paid $200 for the pet then you get back $200. Pets are viewed as property (they shouldn’t be) and so you are replaced your lost "property."
September 18th, 2009 at 6:33 PMReferences :
paul c
no, they will and already do donate money to non profit organizations, aimed at the health of pets. they will ear mark funds for the express purpose of helping pets that may have been exposed to toxins contained in pet foods. i would bet, even manufacturers not involved in tainted products, will use this opportunity to mount a public relations campaign . they will help with the care of pets affected, to enhance their public image.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:18 PMReferences :