Pet Owners Likely to Get Little in Suits

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

Pet Owners Likely to Get Little in Suits

Sunday April 1, 2:42 PM EDT

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Pet owners are not likely to get much compensation if they individually sue pet food-maker Menu Foods over the death of a dog or cat, although they might fare better if they joined forces in a class action suit, legal experts say.

Most state laws consider animals — even beloved pets — to be only personal property. That means that even for the loss of a faithful family companion, a successful civil lawsuit would not likely produce much reward, said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

"With animals, all you get is the value of the property," he said. "There are no emotional damages."

In early March, Menu Foods recalled 60 million containers of its "cuts and gravy" style wet pet foods, sold under nearly 100 store labels and major brands across North America. It did so after cats fell sick and died during routine company taste tests.

Read more: http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_top.jsp?news_id=ap-d8o7vqh81&

[Truthiness Inspector]

1. Disgusting

And this: "It did so after cats fell sick and died during routine company taste tests."

Why routinely test for toxins when you can have animals taste test untested food?

:puke: :puke: :puke:

If anything the standards should be set far higher, otherwise, what is to stop companies from churning out toxic pet foods? A microscopic slap on the wrist obviously is no deterrent.

[Liberty Belle]

2. Just wait until someone's seeing eye dog succumbs,

and you'll likely see the stakes go up.

[dysfunctional press]

8. seeing eye dogs can be replaced.

they are still just property in the eyes of the law.

[pokercat999]

16. Wait until someone takes out the CEO of Menu and

you'll see JUSTICE. Screw the money it would only be peanuts to such a large company.

[WindRavenX]

3. This is why pets need to be no longer classified as property

Because this is exactly why it's horseshit. They're a part of your family and heart :cry:

[LisaL]

5. I think it's rather obvious that making pets into family members

will provide a lot of legal problems. For instance, right now you can euthanize your sick pet. Try to do this with a family member.

[Solon]

6. Pets already have some form of legal protection besides being "personal property"...

Its illegal to abuse a pet, you can't beat your dog or cat, nor can YOU kill them personally, in some states that's a felony. Unlike any other "property" there are legal restrictions as to how you can treat a pet. I don't see why this same type of protection can't be extended to civil suits.

[hang a left]

7. I think you are correct. At least, you should be.

I think this is a "trial balloon". They want to keep all the suits in class action so that it can be heard somewhere by a stacked federal judiciary.

[Solon]

10. Possible, if anything can get the laws changed, its pet owners...

States have been stiffening penalties in regard to crimes against animals. This is especially true since such behaviors have been linked to sociopathic and other dangerous behaviors. In some states, in a couple of extraordinary cases, perps were sentenced up to 5 years for killing or torturing pets.

[hang a left]

15. I don't know if you remember...

It is hard to keep all the law breaking in your head...

But there was a piece of legislation that was passed that required all class action suits to be heard at a federal level. This was a while back. Someone correct me if I am wrong. I remember everyone having a fit over this new law.

It is of the same assault as the "you can't sue fast food companies" anymore type of legislation.

Really these bastages have had 6 years to destroy the rights of the American people. It is disgusting!!!!!!

Where is the disgusting smiley??

[dysfunctional press]

9. in what states is it a felony to kill your own pet?

they must not have much livestock farming in those states, huh...?

[Solon]

11. They separate them into two classes...

"Companion" Animals and "Livestock", sorry if I wasn't clear. Here's a list:

http://www.lisaviolet.com/cathouse/cruelty.html

ON EDIT: Here is a more comprehensive list, its interesting that Alabama has a maximum jail time of 10 years(Warning PDF file):

http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/state_cruelty_chart.pdf

[dysfunctional press]

12. those stats are about anti-cruelty.

just because someone kills their own pet, it doesn't mean that it was done cruelly.

should the kid at the end of ol' yeller been charged with a felony?

[Solon]

14. OK, let's see here...

Killing your own animal FOR NO REASON is CONSIDERED animal cruelty, there is no separation, legally speaking, between beating a dog and shooting it FOR NO REASON. They have EXCEPTIONS to this, for example, if the animal attacked you, is rabid, etc.

Why don't you look up some of the laws in some of the states, New York's and Massachusetts's are under the first link click the state, then go to the forums, they have links to the actual laws, read them yourself.

Here: allow me to make it clear:

M.G.L. c. 272, § 77. Cruelty to animals.

The link:

http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/272-77.htm

Excerpt:

Section 77. Whoever overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, cruelly beats, mutilates or kills an animal, or causes or procures an animal to be overdriven, overloaded, driven when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of necessary sustenance, cruelly beaten, mutilated or killed; and whoever uses in a cruel or inhuman manner in a race, game, or contest, or in training therefor, as lure or bait a live animal, except an animal if used as lure or bait in fishing; and whoever, having the charge or custody of an animal, either as owner or otherwise, inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon it, or unnecessarily fails to provide it with proper food, drink, shelter, sanitary environment, or protection from the weather, and whoever, as owner, possessor, or person having the charge or custody of an animal, cruelly drives or works it when unfit for labor, or willfully abandons it, or carries it or causes it to be carried in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon, or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty of any kind shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,500, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

In addition to any other penalty provided by law, upon conviction for any violation of this section or of sections seventy-seven A, seventy-eight, seventy-eight A, seventy-nine A, seventy-nine B, eighty A, eighty B, eighty C, eighty D, eighty F, eighty-six, eighty-six A, eighty-six B or ninety-four the defendant may, after an appropriate hearing to determine the defendant's fitness for continued custody of the abused animal, be ordered to surrender or forfeit to the custody of any society, incorporated under the laws of the commonwealth for the prevention of cruelty to animals or for the care and protection of homeless or suffering animals, the animal whose treatment was the basis of such conviction.

Look at the highlighted words, now, did I make myself clear, or do you need me to draw it out for you, in crayon?

[customerserviceguy]

17. You left out the modifier

"cruelly...kills". You have the right to beat your dog if he poops in your slippers, as long as you don't do it cruelly. You have the right to mutilate your animal (tail docking, claw removal) if its not done cruelly. You gotta read the whole sentence.

I agree, pet owners are not going to get much more than the economic value of the pet, plus vet bills, if any. Hell, in this country, you cannot even sue for loss of consortium from your human significant other, if you're not married. Even if you're not allowed to marry.

It will be good to see the large premium pet food manufacturers be driven out of business, however. What's the sense in spending the big bucks for the expensive stuff, if it comes out of the same vat as the supermarket brand cheap stuff? I would think that for the extra money shelled out for Science Diet, etc., that they owed their customers a higher standard of care in making damn good and sure their products were wholesome.

[dysfunctional press]

19. in regard to the different foods coming from the same manufacturer-

i don't begrudge them doing so- for instance, menu foods said that it has over 1400 different recipes that it uses. and making pet food, premium or discount brand, i would assume takes the same type of equipment and facilitis- the main difference is the ingredients. rather than duplicate the manufacturing facilities for each company- in a very competitive field, having fewer facilities is just an economic reality. just because one company makes both discount-crap food, and the ultra-premium stuff, it doesn't mean that the premium stuff is any less premium- it's the quality of the ingredients in which combinations and quantities that make the difference.

HOWEVER- i do think that pet food labels should have to say who made the food- instead of saying "manufactured by nutro" on the label, it should say "manufactured by menu foods FOR nutro".

and any company that farms out it's manufacturing should have someone from their own company overseeing the manufacturing of their own brand at the plant where it's being made, to ensure the quality, and to establish liability.

[Solon]

20. What does the modifier change?

It doesn't even apply to the word "kills", it refers to beating the animal. This would be similar to child abuse laws, there is a threshold in discipline that can't be crossed. That's probably why they put "cruelly" before the word, there is a difference between smacking your dog once for pooping in you slippers, and kicking him outside in the fenced-in backyard, compared to taking a belt to him and splitting his hide with it.

ON EDIT: A note on Dog discipling, my family took in an abused dog, he was found abandoned, and had a host of problems, even at only about 6 months old, when we were able to get him. Similarly to abused children, abused animals will react to many different situations violently, and you have to be aware of it. Generally speaking, using violence to discipline a dog or a cat ISN'T recommended, its generally ineffective, and the animal in question may become violent towards people.

As far as mutilation, first, it has to be done by a licensed vet, and second, both practices should be illegal, particularly declawing, which seems to be a uniquely American practice. If you decide to take a pair of pruning shears to a dogs tail, good luck arguing that you have a "right" to do that!

[UTUSN]

4. Of COURSE not!!1 Everybody knows they are just beings who unconditionally give ALL for you!!1 n/t

[Liberty Belle]

13. Aren't there civil suits in domestic violence and divorce cases

where pets have been valued rather highly?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

18. Try willing all your assets to a car

Yet there are currently 31 states where you can will your assets to a beloved pet.

For me this speaks of a recognized difference between property and a living entity with legal rights.

[auburngrad82]

21. Menu foods and all the brands involved will pay dearly in lost revenue

The owners may not get much in the way of compensation but the brands will end up losing big in the long run. My dogs have been unaffected by the food recall but I switched from Nutro to an organic brand. I buy about 100 pounds every month so Nutro is losing about $70 per month just from my family and I'm not even directly effected.