In keeping with controversial topics this week (Michael Vick being the big controversy), I found a story out of Virginia about a man who is suing his former domestic partner for emotional distress after the death of his Chihuahua.
In a nutshell…here’s the story: Jeffrey Nanni and Maurice Smith were former domestic partners. Two years ago, Smith allegedly beat their 12 lb Chihuahua with a wooden board. Smith was found guilty of assault and battery as well as cruelty to animals in connection with this event. An autopsy of the dog found that he died of blunt force trauma to the head.
Nanni, who is a paralegal, maintains that he continues to suffer emotional distress and should be compensated for that. He is asking for no less than $15,000, which is the minimum amount that will ensure the case will be heard in this particular court (Arlington Circuit Court).
So…it certainly is a sad case and one that should have never happened (Nanni evidently picked up the dog as he and Smith here fighting and Smith attempted to hit him with the board). Smith served 10 days in jail and was on probation for a year. But, my bigger concern is the precedent that this case could set.
Currently, in almost every state, emotional damages are not allowed to be collected by pet owners. Most states simply allow the owner to collect the “fair market value” of the pet. A recent case in New Jersey though did set another precedent stating that a pet’s “special subjective value” needs to be considered in custody cases. This has now opened up the doors that will move pets from “property” or chattel to another classification that we don’t even have yet (sentient property?).
Another case in California sided against an attorney who was suing a veterinarian for wrongful death of her Maltese. The court stated that pets were considered property and you can’t get damages for emotional distress or loss of companionship with property. Furthermore, parents can’t sue doctors accused of medical malpractice after the death of their child and expect damages for emotional distress either. In case after case across the United States, the courts normally find that there is no basis for damages based on emotional distress because (again) “pets are property”. There are a few states that have broken away (Idaho, Kentucky, Florida, Alaska, New York, New Jersey and Hawaii) from this traditional view of pets as property, but they are still reluctant to award substantial damages based on emotional distress. Instead, the “intrinsic value” of the pet is calculated.
There is no doubt that pets are special to almost every one of us and we cherish their special value…but how do you adequately put a price tag on that in the event of the pet’s death? Should purebreds be worth more? Should dog owners get more money than cat owners? Should it depend on how much money you spent at the veterinary office in wellness care, etc?
The scary thing about this case is that a jury who awards Nanni a substantial amount of money will open the floodgates to a landslide of wrongful death lawsuits. Veterinarians will be forced to carry larger amounts of malpractice insurance simply because the insurance carriers won’t want to take these cases to court…they will settle out of court in order to “make things go away”. If veterinarians have to pay more for insurance, you can be very certain that those costs will be passed on in the forms of higher medical invoices.
And, as many already know, there are people who have a hard time paying for veterinary expenses, despite the fact that it is a true bargain when compared to human medicine. But rest assured, a case like this that sets a precedent will cause veterinary costs to increase.
So, what is the answer? Do we have a new classification for pets beyond property but short of human life? Should you be able to get emotional damages after the loss of your pet?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Request from KittyMadGrrrr on Twitter
So, I am being told in Twitter world that I have been remiss in posting Nutro's reply to me. As I mentioned in a previous blog, the first time Nutro sent information to me, it was nothing more than corporate speak. In other words, a lot of words really saying nothing.
When I followed up with Nutro, I spoke with their communications person who explained this to me: In the lots that were affected there were bags of premix that contained the excess zinc along with bags of premix that were correctly proportioned. Since both types of premix were used in the manufacturing process of these lots, the quality testing done after completion did not reveal any significant aberrations in the final product.
I can understand that. If I wanted to make up 10 batches of brownies all at once and just combined 10 bags of brownie mix into a bowl, I might not know immediately if 1 of those bags of brownie mix had too much of some ingredient in it. AND...a random check of my freshly baked brownies at the end might not find the small number of brownies that had excess ingredient "X". But, if I heard Betty Crocker had recalled the brownie mix after I baked the brownies, I would likely toss the whole tray rather than chance a problem that someone would eat a "bad" brownie.
She also mentioned to me the problems with the premix were noted during a paper audit after the lot had been sent. In an abundance of caution, the decision was made to recall the food, even though it was still unclear as to the effects of excess dietary zinc.
Again, as I have previously mentioned, this seems pretty straightforward to me. Recall the product to prevent any damage. Some posters have questioned the fact that they still saw bags of food on store shelves weeks after the recall and why didn't Nutro do more to get those bags away from consumers.
Well, again, we have to look at the complexity of the food industry. Do you realize that for 4 straight months we had daily recalls on peanut butter based products? More than 2000 products were eventually recalled, some as late as 4 months after the initial recall? My question is this: how does a company not know if it used those products? And the answer isn't clear....even Marion Nestle, noted food blogger, doesn't have an answer for that. So, I guess I am not surprised that some stores still had Nutro Cat food stocked weeks later. Do you think its possible that some stores simply ignored the recall? Maybe some were informed, but didn't follow through by informing employess to pull the product promptly....maybe some got the letter, the manager was on vacation, on his/her return, saw the Nutro envelope and assumed it was an advertisement or program his/her store didn't want to follow and trashed it. Our food supply system, for people and pets, is unbelievably complex and global in scale. There are going to be forgotten corners and out of the way stores that don't get the information as promptly as they should...but that is not the fault of the manufacturing company. As far as consumers, can we make someone watch TV or browse the Internet? NO...and, we as a country value our privacy, so trying to find out who bought what food when is a task that will never be accomplished.
One thing I have noticed is that it is a rare blogger or "twitterer" who has a workable solution to this on-going problem. It's much easier to say "bad company" than try to find ideas that might prevent the problems from recurring.
And finally, for KittyMadGrrr on Twitter...I posted this simply because I knew you would not rest until I did. Does it make you feel better reading it? No...you are convinced that Nutro (and probably a lot of other companies) are simply out there to screw people. Nothing I say, nothing Nutro says will ever make you change your mind.
Did Nutro food kill cats? Right now the evidence is scant. There are very few discussions about zinc toxicosis on any veterinary boards I have visited and these were all focused at the time of the recall.(and I did check as of this morning, looking back over the last 150 days). Addtionally, veterinary nutritionists and toxicologists have not given any indication that cats are dying from eating Nutro food. Yes, clients are saying that their cats got sick after eating Nutro food, but I will reiterate ONCE AGAIN, not all clients are reliable about providing all the needed facts to their veterinarian. Here's a personal example...my new Mastiff puppy is on Iams. I got a new 20 lb bag and within a day he had developed very soft stools and needed to defecate frequently. It would be really easy to blame Iams for producing a "bad" product unless you also knew that I have a 2 year old toddler at home who enjoys sharing his food and snacks with the dog. Maybe it's the "other" food my puppy is getting that is actually causing the issue and not the new brand of food.
Until it can be shown otherwise, I think I am moving on from this discussion. I apologize for the tardiness of this blog, along with any new ones, but I am still trying to feed my family and perform my job. I will be moving on to new topics...hopefully ones that are more productive than this one.
When I followed up with Nutro, I spoke with their communications person who explained this to me: In the lots that were affected there were bags of premix that contained the excess zinc along with bags of premix that were correctly proportioned. Since both types of premix were used in the manufacturing process of these lots, the quality testing done after completion did not reveal any significant aberrations in the final product.
I can understand that. If I wanted to make up 10 batches of brownies all at once and just combined 10 bags of brownie mix into a bowl, I might not know immediately if 1 of those bags of brownie mix had too much of some ingredient in it. AND...a random check of my freshly baked brownies at the end might not find the small number of brownies that had excess ingredient "X". But, if I heard Betty Crocker had recalled the brownie mix after I baked the brownies, I would likely toss the whole tray rather than chance a problem that someone would eat a "bad" brownie.
She also mentioned to me the problems with the premix were noted during a paper audit after the lot had been sent. In an abundance of caution, the decision was made to recall the food, even though it was still unclear as to the effects of excess dietary zinc.
Again, as I have previously mentioned, this seems pretty straightforward to me. Recall the product to prevent any damage. Some posters have questioned the fact that they still saw bags of food on store shelves weeks after the recall and why didn't Nutro do more to get those bags away from consumers.
Well, again, we have to look at the complexity of the food industry. Do you realize that for 4 straight months we had daily recalls on peanut butter based products? More than 2000 products were eventually recalled, some as late as 4 months after the initial recall? My question is this: how does a company not know if it used those products? And the answer isn't clear....even Marion Nestle, noted food blogger, doesn't have an answer for that. So, I guess I am not surprised that some stores still had Nutro Cat food stocked weeks later. Do you think its possible that some stores simply ignored the recall? Maybe some were informed, but didn't follow through by informing employess to pull the product promptly....maybe some got the letter, the manager was on vacation, on his/her return, saw the Nutro envelope and assumed it was an advertisement or program his/her store didn't want to follow and trashed it. Our food supply system, for people and pets, is unbelievably complex and global in scale. There are going to be forgotten corners and out of the way stores that don't get the information as promptly as they should...but that is not the fault of the manufacturing company. As far as consumers, can we make someone watch TV or browse the Internet? NO...and, we as a country value our privacy, so trying to find out who bought what food when is a task that will never be accomplished.
One thing I have noticed is that it is a rare blogger or "twitterer" who has a workable solution to this on-going problem. It's much easier to say "bad company" than try to find ideas that might prevent the problems from recurring.
And finally, for KittyMadGrrr on Twitter...I posted this simply because I knew you would not rest until I did. Does it make you feel better reading it? No...you are convinced that Nutro (and probably a lot of other companies) are simply out there to screw people. Nothing I say, nothing Nutro says will ever make you change your mind.
Did Nutro food kill cats? Right now the evidence is scant. There are very few discussions about zinc toxicosis on any veterinary boards I have visited and these were all focused at the time of the recall.(and I did check as of this morning, looking back over the last 150 days). Addtionally, veterinary nutritionists and toxicologists have not given any indication that cats are dying from eating Nutro food. Yes, clients are saying that their cats got sick after eating Nutro food, but I will reiterate ONCE AGAIN, not all clients are reliable about providing all the needed facts to their veterinarian. Here's a personal example...my new Mastiff puppy is on Iams. I got a new 20 lb bag and within a day he had developed very soft stools and needed to defecate frequently. It would be really easy to blame Iams for producing a "bad" product unless you also knew that I have a 2 year old toddler at home who enjoys sharing his food and snacks with the dog. Maybe it's the "other" food my puppy is getting that is actually causing the issue and not the new brand of food.
Until it can be shown otherwise, I think I am moving on from this discussion. I apologize for the tardiness of this blog, along with any new ones, but I am still trying to feed my family and perform my job. I will be moving on to new topics...hopefully ones that are more productive than this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)