Your pet died: would you sue?

[cgrindley]

I checked my cat's food right away, and since he eats dried food, I feel pretty comfortable. But now I'm wondering, if your pet died from consuming tainted food, would you sue?

Personally, I wouldnt'. I've lost a cherished pet a couple of years ago to anti-freeze poisoning (my neighbor's driveway), but it's just not worth it. I'm not a particularly litigious person and I think that one of the things that makes America a weak nation is the nature of its legal system. EG I never should have let my cat go outside. I knew the risks. I'm the one to blame. Besides, accidents happen.

So I wouldn't sue.

But what would you do?

[CountAllVotes]

1. Yes I would sue the shit out of THEM

My cats are the equivalent of children to me.

[YOY]

2. Accidents do happen

but you occasionally hear stories of people who maliciously poison other people's pets.

[rosesaylavee]

3. I imagine there will be a class action lawsuit

coming down the pike. Yes, I would sue.

[Liberty Belle]

4. Yes. How else do we stop corporations from destroying lives

when this could have easily been prevented with oversight and diligence on the manufacturers' part?

This is a very different case from suing a neighbor who might be forgiven for not realizing antifreeze could harm someone's cat.

Willfully ignoring tests that showed this food could kill pets amounts to murder, and those responsible should be held accountable.

Incidentally, I did once hold a pet product manufacturer responsible for selling a flea collar that sent my cat into seizures and required expensive medical care -- one call to customer service and the company paid all the bills. I didn't even have to threaten a lawsuit.

[cgrindley]

6. Um I hate to open this can of worms but

killing a pet isn't murder, it's cruelty to animals or perhaps property damage.

I think that if it was really a clear case of an overt and intentional criminal act, I could see people joining a class action lawsuit, but I'd rather just move on with my life.

[Bridget Burke]

5. If the cause was Corporate Greed & Republican Hatred of Regulation?

Damn straight.

Your cat's death was an accident. Your decision not to sue your neighbor does not mean you're a better American. (Let's hope that you'll keep future cats indoors.)

[cgrindley]

8. Indoor only now

I'm to blame for Buster's death. I know that. It's irresponsible to let a cat go outdoors, even if it is neutered and protected against rabies and other diseases.

My cat, named Catticus Finch, has a page on catster. He's always looking for pals.

[cherokeeprogressive]

98. A company based in Canada with plants in the US n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. This isn't a case of an accidental spillage of anti-freeze

This is a case of a trusted provider of pet foods selling food that was somehow tainted. If it's due an ingredient they used that was not safe, i.e. wheat gluten, then there should have been a way to ascertain that fact before the ingredient was used.

I'd make such a big legal stink they wouldn't know what hit them, not for monetary reasons, but in hopes that something like this will not be allowed to ever happen again.

[enigmatic]

9. yes

In a second.

[Ladyhawk]

10. Hell, yes.

This isn't an accidental anti-freeze poisoning. This is negligence by a pet food company. Even if a pet owner did all the right things, he/she could end up with a dead pet. That's the difference and the pet food company should pay for its negligence. It will make other pet food companies a little more eager to make sure their products are safe.

Like the above poster, I consider my parrot a part of my family rather than "just a pet." He's lived with me for almost twenty years and if he died as a result of some stupid company's negligence, there would be hell to pay.

[Jonathan50]

11. If it were due to negligence on the part of the food manufacturer

Yes, I would sue.

Pets become part of the family and it entails considerable grief when they die.

[RamboLiberal]

12. In this case - hell yes!

I'm not big on sueing the little guy except in cases of absolute gross negligence, but IMHO the only thing many of these big businesses understand is $$$$$. This company hid this problem for nearly a month. And are they testing each ingredient from each batch of products going in to their pet foods? I think the FDA ought to be responsible as well or whomever is responsible in Fed govt for ensuring dog and cat food. The FDA has never visited this companies Kansas plant!

[progdonkey]

13. I would definitely sue for tainted food...

That's stuff that's meant for pets, so if it causes harm to them because the manufacturer screwed up in making it, I would definitely sue them.

In your case re: the anti-freeze, I'd be on the fence about suing them, mainly because they're your neighbors, and you have to get along with them. At the same time, I think it's pretty well known that anti-freeze is both poisonous and especially tempting to pets, that leaving a puddle of anti-freeze in the driveway would be pretty strong grounds for negligence--especially if you know the neighbors have pets, even if you don't. Still, if you were on good terms with your neighbor, I'm sure just knowing that they aided (however unintentionally) in the poisoning of your pet was enough punishment. All-around awful situation. :-(

[LiberalFighter]

14. If I owned a cat and allowed the cat to roam the neighborhood and it died

due to anti-freeze poisoning. No

If my dogs were outside and they died because of anti-freeze poisoning. No

I have a legal duty to control my girls actions. I scold the younger one whenever she goes off property.

The food tainting bit... that would have to wait if it happens to my girls. Hopefully it never will.

[jobycom]

15. Depends on the situation and the level of culpability of the entity responsible.

If I let my cat out and she got hit by a car, there'd be no reason to sue, obviously. A couple of years ago, I took my cat to a vet, who recommended a series of treatments that included putting her on a diet. The diet led her to fatty liver syndrome, which almost killed her, and cost my several thousands of dollars I didn't have. Still, she lived, so I didn't sue, even though the vet made a mistake in her advice, and that mistake helped lead to the problem.

If, though, I had bought a cat food from a trusted vendor, and that cat food directly killed my cat, I'd certainly consider it. I'd want to know what caused the death, first of all, and what caused the pet food manufacturer to make such a tragic mistake. If the fatalities were the result of a mistake the company couldn't have prevented, and if every caution had been taken to make sure the food was safe, I'd probably not do it.

But if it turned out that research was cut, or that known risks were taken to cut costs, or that some decision was made without fully testing or investigating the potential dangers, all because it was cheaper, I'd sure as hell sue. I'd feel obligated to sue, so that future companies would know better than to put profits that far ahead of safety and trust. It would be my obligation as an American and as a world citizen to punish that company's sins. A company that sells pet food has an extreme obligation to provide pet food, and if they are selling a product that is poisonous, they should have their profits removed by a court of law.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Depends on how it happened.

If it was some freak accidental contamination, then no. If it were neglect, then yes.

[trof]

17. I didn't sue. I contacted state veterinary board.

It's a very long story, but we left our geriatric German Shepherd with a boarding kennel we hadn't used before. The facilities seemed better than at our tried and true place.

Two weeks later we collected a skeleton of a dog who could not walk unassisted. She had a large open 'bed sore' on one hip, even though we had left a comforter for her to sleep on.

We took her straight to our regular vet, and he was shocked at her condition.

I talked to the manager at the boarding facility and expressed my unhappiness with her treatment. They hadn't even given her her daily meds. We got the full bottles back. They basically stonewalled me.

I got in touch with the head of the state veterinary board, who happened to be a local vet. He instituted an investigation. They failed miserably. They were forced to adopt a whole new set of procedures and rules, put forth by the investigators. Hopefully no other animal will have to go through what our Nasha did. And they cancelled my bill, which was not my purpose in the first place.

[barb162]

88. I did that once and it was not investigated

They are notorious in our State about not investigating this kind of stuff. My complaint was about a vet and I even highlighted the documents for them and where the laws were broken. I am glad you got some satisfaction.

[Tsiyu]

18. MY SO's cat died last Thursday

She was his best buddy for 12 years, a half Siamese, half Manx, tailless with beautiful blue eyes. She travelled with him everywhere in his truck til he left her with family while he works in CA. He is pretty torn up, to say the least.

His family feels guilty enough, so he was not going to say anything when I mentioned the food recall, but this morning he said his sis is on the trail of this thing. She brought up a point to the FDA which I disagree with but which may prompt them to act: what if this was a terrorist's attempt to see how easy it is to contaminate our food supply? Like I said, that's a real stretch, and I'm more inclined to say it's a "canary in a coalmine" moment for us humans. Until we know the root cause of the renal failure induced by these products, who knows?

Al that being said, I have encouraged him to sue. He owes $600 in vet bills trying to save this cat. Should he bear the entire burden when a manufacturer is to blame? Should the manufacturer be allowed to sell a product that is deadly with no punishment? In what other universe would we call this fair or just?

YOU may not sue, but I would.

[qanda]

19. The only reason I would sue

Is because they KNEW pets were dying from this food and they did nothing for weeks. There are a lot of pets who could have been saved and died because they were negligent.

[Tsiyu]

27. That's what I told my SO

"You can't save your cat, but putting the screws to a manufacturer who killed her may save a lot of other pets."

They are debating digging up her remains for a necropsy, but they already have $600 worth of bloodwork and tests done to figure out why the cat suddenly became sick.

[qanda]

I'm sorry for the loss you've had

That has to really hurt. We lost our dog suddenly last year and I don't know what I would have done if it were caused by someone just being greedy.

[Tsiyu]

43. Thanks

In a few weeks, she was going to be moving here with him and joining my critters.

And greed IS the culprit 99% of the time these days, huh?

:hug:

[zanne]

78. My sister had her cat autopsied...

This was a few years ago. They thought the cat may have had rabies. This was a precious pet who had been with my sister and her husband for 17 years. After the cat was euthanized, they told my sister they were going to give her the cat's remains so she could take it to the lab in another part of the state. They gave her a plastic bag with her cat's head in it. (She had to pay for the autopsy).

[AZBlue]

63. I'm am SO sorry!

It's hard enough to lose a pet for any reason, but when it's a stupid thing that could have been prevented, it makes it even worse! My sympathies!!!

[Tsiyu]

79. Thanks

It was a great loss for him.


:hug:

[RC Quake]

71. I'm sorry about your SO's cat, but it just makes me think

I wonder how many people that lose pets for other reasons, i.e. old age, diabetes, other poisons, etc. will jump on the bandwagon to sue the manufacturer even though they were not feeding their pets the product. There has to be some form of testing on the deceased to prove the cause of death is directly related to the food contamination. People are going to get sue happy with this one.

Don't get me wrong...my spouse & I couldn't have children, so our dogs ARE our children. I would be enraged and out for blood if someone harmed either of them. If I had sufficient proof that they were responsible, they would be sued. I would never sue withough that proof. Many others will, though. That's the sad fact about our society. All people see are $$$$$$$.

[Tsiyu]

81. That may be true, but

I've been offered a part ina few class action suits and declined to join in the fun, simply because in those situations, most of the $$$ would end up going to the lawyers.

I wonder, in the case of large class action suits, what the percentages are as far as how many people entitled to settlement actually sign on to be part of the class action proceedings.

And it seems in this case one would have to produce proof of purchase, either by receipt or product package as well as a vet statement.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Yes. Tainted food is an accident, but covering it up for a month

was no accidenct.

I'd sue.

As a side note, my sister's cat died yesterday. Maybe just a coincidence, and it was 12 yrs old, but I need to ask her what she was feeding her.

[gatorboy]

21. Those are two completely different situations. You're aware of that, right?

It's those damn trial lawyers, right? ;)

[Zavulon]

22. Well, if my wife and kids died because of tainted food I'd sue, so I'd have to say

that I'd sue if tainted food killed my cat, too.

Granted, I am not married, have no kids and no cat, but you get the idea.

[spoony]

91. Agreed.

All this tainted food isn't acceptable in either human or pet food.

[quinnox]

23. not me

It wasn't done on purpose so there wouldn't be a point unless you are a gold digger. There are many cats who need to be adopted at the humane society so just get another one there and stop trying to get rich from a simple mistake would be my advice.

[Tsiyu]

34. The OP says our legal system makes us weak

You characterize anyone who would sue as "goldigging."

IMO, you are both way off the mark. Allowing tainted food - whether for animals or humans- to be sold without punishment makes us all weak. No oversight by the regulatory agencies has made us extremely weak as citizens. The corporations are the only entities made 'strong' when there is no accountability for what is sold in the marketplace.

Also, people have spent no doubt millions trying to save their beloved pets. How is it 'golddigging' to want to recoup your loss when another's negligence caused it?

If your kid's babysitter knowingly fed your kid a peanut butter sandwich knowing full well that your kid was deathly allergic to peanuts, but he wanted to save money by feeding all the kids in his care the same food, and your kid incurred thousands in medical bills, would you feel like a golddigger if you sued the babysitter to help pay the medical bills?

I think not.

[alittlelark]

96. Thanks for saying that.... I was reading through the posts

Before posting almost exactly what you did.

[Tsiyu]

101. Sounded suspiciously

like some sort of......I don't know.............

TALKING POINT??????"

:eyes:

[MiniMe]

24. Since they knew for a month before it was announced, YES

Had they be honest, and tried to protect peoples pets immediately, I don't know.

[ComerPerro]

93. knew for a month, knew for five minutes, I would still sue

mistake or not, they need to be held accountable.

[xchrom]

25. depends on the situation.

[Hosnon]

26. To me, it depends. I may consider it if it was a class action suit. Otherwise, it

wouldn't make economic sense.

Edit: I should note that the economic considerations could be outweighed. However, I do not think that is highly likely.

[cgrindley]

32. The company would be immediately bankrupted

and even if it wasn't, the most a pet owner would probably get is less than 10k. The only people to get rich would be the bloodsucking lawyers.

[Beaverhausen]

38. It isn't about money. It's about making corporations responsible for their actions

If they screwed up, they should have to pay - otherwise what keeps them from selling tainted food in the future?

[Hosnon]

47. I agree with Beaverhausen. It's about creating an incentive for corporations

to ensure the safety of their products.

The legal system should be used in these circumstances to promote responsible behavior.

[ComerPerro]

99. why shouldn't the company be bankrupted? they fucked up bigtime, and killed a lot of animals

you prefer, "meh, no harm, no foul"?

[Beaverhausen]

28. If I lost a pet as a result of this latest batch of tainted food, you bet I'd sue

Corporations must be held to account when they are found negligent in making sure that the products they are sell are safe. They shouldn't be allowed to think that there will be no consequences to their actions.

[RebelOne]

29. I sure as hell would sue if my dogs were to be poisoned by bad

food. They are my children.

[woodsprite]

30. I would sue if it wasn't an accident issue - like if they knew

but just didn't release the info on the recall until they got caught. My dog has undergone some bloodtests and urine cultures recently for kidney issues (not food related - she's on Science Diet and Pedigree dry split 50/50). So far nothing has turned up, so now we go to the next level of testing which starts with an ultrasound and a water deprivation test and ends up "i don't know what's next".

If I went thru all that and lost our doggie family member due to company negligence - you better bet I'd sue.

[no_hypocrisy]

31. In many cases, pets are literally another member of the family.

My dad got a dog after my mom passed away, and the dog is equivalent in his eyes to remarriage.

My sister and her husband couldn't have children, so they adopted three dogs. My sister stopped speaking to our mom for a number of months after Mom told her that "Your dogs are children!" I judiciously refer to the Boys as my nephews.

If anything happened to those dogs, the trauma would be ugly and permanent. The shock of not just your loved one (reference: Evelyn Waugh) dying is bad enough, but the horror and knowledge that you unknowingly create that demise and permits witnessing the death would warrant an action in personal injury.

[cgrindley]

33. Yeah but

the law doesn't see it that way. With the exception of a case still under appeal, pets are treated as property.

[no_hypocrisy]

36. Dunno. Might be a case of first impression on psychic injury (negligent

infliction of personal distress) if not for loss of "property".

[cgrindley]

37. The case under appeal

claimed "loss of companionship" and the litigant was awarded a little under two million dollars. We'll have to see what happens.

Catticus Finch, my kitty (page on Catster, hint hint), is much more to me than a pet. I dress him up in little cat clothes for christ sakes. I'd be crushed if he got sick, but I think that suing people all the time, even if it gives payback to an evil company, encourages a system where everyone sues everyone too much and no one ever claims personal responsibility anymore.

[no_hypocrisy]

54. It would be blood money if I kept the judgement. If I were a plaintiff and

won the case, I'd donate the money to a local animal shelter.

I still stand by the negligent infliction of emotional distress if the court recognizes that people attain psychic injury based on the cruel death of a beloved pet. I think the operative word is "beloved".

[cgrindley]

58. I hadn't thought about donations

I could live with donating the money to an animal shelter. My kitty came from an animal shelter.

[bullwinkle428]

68. Personal responsibility?!? What about the manufacturer's

fucking responsibility to make a food that doesn't cause my cat to die a slow, agonizing death?

A lawsuit would NOT be about me getting rich off of my pet's death - I totally agree with the idea of the money going to a shelter, to help sterilize ferals, etc.

[gatorboy]

39. Not necessarily.

In Arkansas, animal cruelty towards pets was raised to a felony, simply because so many people treat their pets as family.

[H2O Man]

50. That is distinct

from the loss of a pet. I know that it can have a relationship, of course, but animal cruelty laws are not limited to family pets. In most states, people will be disappointed to find that the loss of a family pet is not treated as anything beyond the loss of property. There are limitations on what a person can recover in such cases. (I do not think the laws in this area are in any sense fair.)

[gatorboy]

57. That's true.

But it was pet owners that convinced Arkansas congress to change the act to a felony.

[H2O Man]

62. I think most pet

owners have a far better concept of the "value" of pets. It's a strange area of the law. In many ways, our laws are more geared to protect "property" than "people." Sadly, a certain group, or class, of people and their property are more protected than others.

[Bake]

35. I hate to break it to you, but ...

Nobody's getting rich out of this one. Unless the law has changed in various jurisdictions since I was in law school (and note: I have not checked this out lately), all you could sue for is property damage. No emotional distress, loss of companionship, etc. The law traditionally viewed animals, including pets, as property. So unless you've got a really expensive breed of dog or cat, no big damages.

Which, of course, is where a class action comes in.

Bake, Esq.

[ComerPerro]

94. Not sure if your point is one of two things, but I'll get this across either way:

It could be that you are saying there is no point in lawsuits, since you aren't gonna go far and at most will get only compenstation for damaged property.

Or you could be saying that the people who plan to sue are doing so without expectation of getting rich.


Which is where I would fall in.


Even if the lawsuits only award cost of the pet, in some cases (if you didn't adopt, and didn't buy from a pet store) dogs can cost between 300 and 600 dollars.

Multiply that by the number of people involved in the lawsuit, and the company is gonna have to shell out some big bucks.

And, honestly, they should have to pay, because they really fucked up large here. And too often our society gives companies special rights, even when they violate laws and/or cause extensive damage, mistake or not.

sometimes class action lawsuits is the only way to get economic justice (otherwise its just a small, slap-on-the-wrist fine).

[Nite Owl]

40. I would sue

It comes down to if they acted in good faith. Did they know and take the chance that nothing would happen to save their bottom line? That is capitalism gone awry and they deserve to be sued. Was it something out of their control? Then no, it was an unfortunate problem for everyone. If as is being said they know for a month and did not immediately recall the products in question they must pay somehow for the grief they caused. Our pets are part of our families and even if they did not die vet bills can add up quickly, they have moved the burden of the expense to the customer and that is not fair.

[sinkingfeeling]

41. Yes, as I've invested well over $10,000 in medical treatments for my diabetic, blind,

Cushings' dog of 11 years. I would also probably spend another $10,000 if she were to have kidney damage as a result of eating tainted pet food (Her special diet isn't on the list). So, I would definitely sue.

[LeftyMom]

42. All you'd get is "replacement value" anyhow. The law regards animals as objects, not family.

[sinkingfeeling]

45. That depends on the state you live in. Just recently, a state allowed for a

'loss of companionship' award in the death of a dog.

http://www.nabr.org/animallaw/EmotionalDistress/index.htm

Added link

[LeftyMom]

52. But it's not precedent-setting. The precedents are all for replacement value and expenses.

Also, the cases you cited allow damages for torts inflicted on the animal's owner, there's no legal admission that the life of the animal itself is inherently more valuable than the cost of getting a "replacement" animal.

[Beaverhausen]

55. But what about punitive damages- those that punish the company for selling tainted food

that is the real point here IMHO.

[Bake]

53. The Ky. case was an action for "tort of outrage"

That is, outrageous conduct (generally either intentional or reckless) that results in infliction of extreme emotional distress. The key in that case was the conduct itself (involving the death of a horse, near and dear to those of us from KY!), more than the fact that it was the death of a horse.

Accidental tainting of pet food by a manufacturer is not likely to rise to the level of "outrageous conduct" necessary, at least in KY.

Bake

[SaveElmer]

44. Yes this was no simple accident...

They had evidence from their testing something was wrong with the food, yet delayed warning people...a class action suit is certainly in order here!

[Individualist]

46. Yes!

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowknows69]

49. I probably better sue

because the other ideas I'd have to get justice would get me in a lot of trouble. I hate how filled with hate this world is making me lately.

[Tatiana]

51. HELL YES! n/t

[Hissyspit]

56. Someone shot my cat last November. I know who it was. If I could prove it, I sure as hell would sue.

Don't have any physical proof, but there's no doubt.

[wicket]

60. My god, I am so sorry

:cry: :hug:

[cgrindley]

64. What kind of sick jerk shoots a kitty?

I'm so sorry for your loss.

[wicket]

59. Oh fuck YES

n/t

[AZBlue]

61. Absofuckinglutely. Then maybe they'll be more careful next time.

They have to learn this isn't just about cutting costs - it's about lives. And it happens in food processing plants for humans as well as animals - it's just unacceptable.

[xultar]

65. I'd sue their nuts off.

[NashVegas]

66. No

As far as I can tell, the company acted in a timely manner.

[KansDem]

67. My cats would want me to...

And I always do what my cats want me to! :)

[NNN0LHI]

70. That was cute n/t

[Greylyn58]

69. In a heart beat

My boy Sheridan is a member of my family and since he can't buy his own food, he trusts me to do right by him.

So if I purchased food that was advertised as being good for him and after doing my own research I agreed and bought it and it then made him ill or God forbid killed him... You bet I would sue. Mostly because I trusted this company to have safe-guards in place to prevent these kinds of problems. There have been too many stories of late about tainted foods either for humans or animals.

Something is just not right and I have to wonder if greed isn't at the center of it. :tinfoilhat:

Thankfully, Sheridan has food allergies, so the food I buy him is wheat-free, beef-free and corn-free, all the foods that usually cause skin allergies. But I will admit it still bothers me to hear these or read about recalls like this.

[Lurking Dem]

72. I would sue

even if my cat didn't die - for the cost of medical treatment at least.

[bertha katzenengel]

73. No. Life is too short.

I'd grieve. I might write a letter expressing my grief.

But no. I wouldn't sue. No way. Life's too short for me to waste my time and energy on something like that.

[NNN0LHI]

74. I almost lost my male Keeshond in January from the food and I am pissed

I don't want to sue but I want to be reimbursed for the 500 bucks I spent to have him diagnosed and made healthy again and also for the cost of the two blood tests I am going to have done on both my Kees later today at the vet.

If I had lost the old boy or my female over this I would be fit to be tied.

Don

[Marie26]

75. Lawsuits keep corporations honest

If it weren't for civil liability laws, corporations would externalize all that risk of loss onto the rest of us. Of course you can sue.

[kiahzero]

76. You think the legal system makes America weak?

Care to explain that rather dramatically unfounded claim?

[Tsiyu]

83. I'd like an answer as well.

Or at least a comment on my comment about the "weak" label.

I wonder what this person would do if he or she bought a case of tainted 10W30 and this person's engine ended up requiring a $2000 rebuild because of the oil.

What if they then found out that the manufacturer knew for months that the product was defective but wanted to save face and profit.

Would they sue to recover some of the mechanic's "damages?"

This question shifts the argument to a purely "property" frame of reference.

[Bluebear]

77. But you're from Canada, right? How is the legal system up there?

Oh wait, your profile says Connecticut now, did you move?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

95. Well, CT is lovely.

My stepdad has a cabin right on a cove in Stonington. There's some great fishing there. At least as good as Canada probably.

[Bluebear]

102. Funny he never answers.

[brettdale]

80. I wouldnt sue

But I would blast it all over the internet telling people not to buy the product.

[Sydnie]

82. In a heart beat

My pets are members of my family. I care for them just as I do my children. I see to their needs and their medical conditions the same as I would any member of my family.

[RamboLiberal]

84. Don't forget you might have $$$ thousands in vet bills

Which this damn company had better pay! BTW a story from Canada says they started hearing about deaths associated with their food in December!

[Hekate]

85. Lawsuits cost money. Pets are considered property, legally worth only what you paid for them...

The first part I know without being told. The second part was a piece of this evening's news analysis from a veterinarian.

It's a rough situation. Personally I'd be heartbroken if my cat or dog died like that, but I wouldn't be able to afford to sue anybody if it happened. If someone wants to try a class action lawsuit I say more power to them. I'm hoping outcry from pet owners will move our congress toward regulation of the "self-regulated" pet food industry.

Hekate

[flying_monkeys]

86. No, but I'd be plenty mad....

I wouldn't sue only because the law regards my beasties as property and only worth a pittance. I would be unlikely to get more than a token $10 for the cats and maybe re-imbursement of the vet bills - - my critter would still be dead, and that money wouldn't really *make it up* to me for losing my pals... In fact, it might drive the company out of business and tighten the supply of food manufacturers for any replacement/future critters I might get if the company had to pay out a grand or so to everyone who joined the Class Action Suit.


I'd want the company investigated/warned/sanctioned to prevent any future bad food from coming out of its plants, but I don't think *I* would want to be part of the process that killed the plant completely. Ultimately, I would try to remember the many people who depend on that plant for making a living, and I'd try to consider their livelihoods are worth more than my critter's life, no matter how much I loved him/her. And people almost always outrank critters in my head.....


But woo boy, would I be mad as hell!

[Tsiyu]

100. No offense but I have a problem understanding your logic

First, you seem to think the recovery of the expense of medical bills is no big deal. To you, it may not be. But to someone else, the expense may represent a week's wages or more. What about their financial circumstances?

Then, you claim to want to avoid messing with someone else's financial circumstances. Granted, one is a short term expense while the other is long-term income, but if your overiding concern is not punishing the company for wrongdoing and is instead an overwhelming focus on another worker's financial well-being, shouldn't you care a bit more about the $$ strain on families who have lost much to vet bills due to this plant's negligence?

Also, if this plant is so grossly obsessed with profit they will risk their reputation and their consumers' (pets) very lives in order to cut corners, they don't sound like a very good company for which to work. They would have very little regard for worker safety if they can't even manage to make a safe product for the end consumer.

So I would think shutting down the plant would make room for a more ethical, responsible company to take over. This is good for business. It is criminal and a form of corporate welfare for the government to prop up a negligent, dangerous manufacturer.

Some say they don't want their tax money going to drug addicts. I don't mind funding rehab for addicts.

I DO mind funding greed addicts with my tax dollars or by my government ignoring the harm they do.

There is right and wrong, and there is no sensible reason to protect this manufacturer.

[kaygore]

87. Yes, I believe that greed will be behind this

I don't own any pets, but people I know who do love those pets almost as much as they love humans. The one good thing that came out of this is that people now know that the cost of the pet food has nothing to do with its real value or ingredients.

[barb162]

89. Only if I had a lot of money to fight

Pets are looked at as property in most states. If you got a stray and paid nothing for it, that's how much you get back even if you win the suit.

[InvisibleTouch]

90. Yes.

Ordinarily I would try to avoid such a hassle, but in a case like this pet food incident, I would go after them with every resource I had. We have here a monster corporation that cut corners and bought cheap contaminiated ingredients in order to boost their profit margins, at the expense of irreplaceable lives. While a mere monetary settlement wouldn't bring anyone's pet back, obviously, it would hurt these bastards in the only way they can actually feel - in the pocketbook.

I hope the people who did lose a pet (I was lucky) get together and wring everything they can out of this company in retribution.

[ComerPerro]

92. You bet your ass. Would have to be class action, but you're damn right I would

[Laurier]

97. I might join a class action suit if I'd spent a ton of money on

veterinarian bills trying to figure out what was wrong my pet, I suppose. I would not likely sue in a personal capacity, though, since compensable damages would be minimal and not worth the time or trouble.