Member since May 10, 2008


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “The $50,000 Mutt

In my opinion the law should ideally address this issue the same as out of pocket losses due to failure to diagnose other problems. This was a professional hired to do a service,he did it negligently and this resulted in HUGE increased costs to this couple. If a negligent mechanic misdiagnosed a problem with your car that he should have easily spotted and it cost you $3k extra to fix one year later directly because of the mechanics negligent failure to diagnose, then you would have a claim for your losses due to negligence. Why isn't it the same here? If you have to repair a dog, and the costs run into the thousands of dollars and someone else's negligence WAS THE CAUSE of the cost, then say , treat the dog like property and allow dog owners to recover their additional cost. If your home was damaged by an exterminators negligent failure to diagnose termites when they were easily diagnosable, then the exterminator is bonded to pay for the additional cost in damage to your property, even if the house is literally worth less than the cost of repairs. The negligent professional is responsible for the damage they cause when they fail to diagnose something that they should (by professional established discoverable standards) SHOULD have found. This should be no different than a failure to find termites in a house. My wish for them is that they receive the value of the dog, the cost of all vet care and the costs of all transportation to and from the vet (I'll assume UC Davis?) plus the value of lost time to do so because that is a REAL expense. The law has been remiss in placing any value on mental suffering for any cause, watching a child die etc. So it isn't surprising that the law places no value on the emotional loss of dog parents who lose a dog. That's a trend throughout the law, as these two lawyers well know. I wish them good luck in their valid claim for damages and increased costs due to negligence. This is very different from trying to place higher value on the dog itself, they are trying to recover repair bills basically. I would ideally like to see the court find this to be a well established proper, common and valid legal claim of action for real quantifiable monetary losses, not some ethereal, unknowable 'value of the love for the dog as a child surrogate'. I want negligent veterinarians to have to pay for the actual increased dollar amount that they cost their patients, they are definitely better situated to cover the loss and they are responsible for their failure in preventative diagnosis. If there was no way of knowing, and the problem was not reasonably diagnosable then I would not have them held financially responsible. In this case it sounds like the vet was negligent.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by L on 05/10/2008 at 5:03 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories

© 2018 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation