Comments on: What should pet food manufactures pay if a cat or dog has kidney damage- is sick but does not die?

By: paul c

paul c — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:18:59 +0000

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.
References :

By: April

April — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:33:59 +0000

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."
References :

By: Tirya

Tirya — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:01:59 +0000

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.
References :

By: Limestoner62

Limestoner62 — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:43:59 +0000

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.
References :

By: Jacqueline M

Jacqueline M — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:13:59 +0000

I think that they should be responsible for veterinary costs. There will most certainly be law suits filed in the near future.
References :

By: Bozema

Bozema — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:40:59 +0000

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.
References :

By: NuncProTunc

NuncProTunc — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:57:59 +0000

Well they should have to be responsible-if the law does not allow that then the law should be changed!
References :

By: Labrdogs Kennel

Labrdogs Kennel — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:39:59 +0000

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.
References :

By: Venice Girl

Venice Girl — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:00:59 +0000

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.
References :