Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Man['s Best Friend] Does Not Live By Bread Alone: Imposing a Duty to Provide Veterinary Care | Phyllis Coleman | 12 Animal L. 13 (2005) |
Although all states outlaw cruelty to companion animals, most jurisdictions only prohibit causing unnecessary suffering as well as failure to provide food, water, and shelter. They do not address whether owners must obtain veterinary care. Even the few statutes that mention such treatment do not define exactly what kind and how much is required. This article highlights the deficiencies in these laws. It argues that keeping pets creates an obligation to get them medical treatment when they are sick or injured and also explains why such a duty is necessary. In addition, it proposes uniform legislation that creates an explicit obligation to provide health care to companion animals, imposes a duty on veterinarians to report cruelty, and establishes strict penalties for violations. |
Article | |
| MARILYN DANTON v. ST. FRANCIS 24 HOUR ANIMAL HOSPITAL, P.C. a Washington professional services corporation (UBI 602-029-072); an |
This document contains the court's instructions to the jury in the Danton v. St. Francis case that concerned the escape of a companion animal (cat) from defendant animal hospital. The cat was being boarded at the hospital at the time it escaped. |
Pleading | |||
| Massa v. Department of Registration and Education | 507 N.E.2d 814 (Ill. 1987) | 116 Ill.2d 376 (1987) |
Dr. Massa sought judicial review of the gross malpractice finding and resulting license revocation in the circuit court after the circuit court reversed the Department's finding of gross malpractice as a conclusion against the manifest weight of the evidence. This finding arises from the death of plaintiff’s German Shepard, after Dr. Massa removed the dog’s healthy uterus and ovaries, while failing to treat the dog’s soon-to-be fatal thoracic condition. The Department's findings in this case could only be disturbed only upon Dr. Massa's showing that they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court held that the record in this case was plainly sufficient to support the Department's determination of gross malpractice in that Dr. Massa ignored the serious nature of Charlie's lung condition and proceeded to remove reproductive organs which, at least at the time of surgery, he knew or should have known to have been healthy. |
Case | |
| McAdams v. Faulk (unpublished) | Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2002 WL 700956 (Ark.App.) |
Dog owner brought dog to veterinarian’s office where someone choked the dog, causing injuries that led to its death. The Court of Appeals held that the owner stated a veterinary malpractice claim against veterinarian because owner alleged that dog was choked while in veterinarian's care, that veterinarian failed to diagnose neck injury that proved fatal, performed unnecessary treatment out of greed, and refused to provide owner with medical explanation of dog's condition and death, all in violation of the veterinary licensing statute. The Court also held that violating the cruelty to animals statute was evidence of negligence, and that damages included economic loss, compensation for mental anguish, including future anguish. and punitive damages. |
Case | ||
| McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hospital | 644 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio Ct.Cl., 1994) | 67 Ohio Misc.2d 40 (1994) |
After defendant filed a stipulation admitting liability for a botched surgery on defendant's show dog that ultimately led to euthanization, a trial was held as to the issue of damages. Evidence adduced at trial showed that "Nemo" had been trained by plaintiff as a Schutzhund or "sport dog" in Schutzhund schooling. The court noted that while dogs are considered personal property in Ohio and market value is the standard award for such personal property, market value in this case was merely a "guideline." In addition to the loss of the specially trained dog, the court also found significant the loss of stud fees for the dog and potential future gains in sustaining the trial court's award of $5,000 in damages. |
Case | |
| McMahon v. Craig | 176 Cal.App.4th 1502, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 555 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2009) | 2009 WL 2344763 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.), 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9809, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,331 |
In this California case, the plaintiff appealed a demurrer granted by the trial court on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and portions of her complaint struck that sought damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship. The case stems from defendant-veterinarian's care of plaintiff's Maltese dog after surgery. Defendant also lied to plaintiff and falsified records concerning the treatment of the dog. On appeal of the trial court demurrer, this court held that an owner cannot recover emotional distress damages for alleged veterinary malpractice. The court found that it would be incongruous to impose a duty on a veterinarian to avoid causing emotional distress to the owner of the animal being treated, while not imposing such a duty on a doctor to the parents of a child receiving treatment. |
Case | |
| MD - Emergency - § 5-614. Veterinary aid, care or assistance | MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 5-614 | MD CTS & JUD PRO § 5-614 | This Maryland law provides that certain individuals including veterinarians, licensed medical providers, first responders, volunteer fire fighters, and designated local government employees who are responding to a call in the community are not civilly liable for any act or omission in giving any veterinary aid, care, or assistance to an animal where the owner or custodian of the animal is not available to grant permission. Certain requirements must be met per subsection (b) for immunity from civil liability. | Statute | |
| MD - Immunity - § 5-614. Veterinary aid, care or assistance | MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 5-614 | MD CTS & JUD PRO § 5-614 | This law gives immunity to certain licensed professionals including veterinarians, medical care licensees, first responders, and certain local government employees for providing veterinary aid, care, or assistance (without a charging a fee) to animals at the scene of an emergency or in transit to a veterinary facility. The listed persons under the statute are not civilly liable for any act or omission in giving any veterinary aid, care, or assistance to an animal where the owner or custodian of the animal is not available to grant permission. | Statute | |
| MD - Lien - § 16-701. Veterinarian's rights | MD Code, Commercial Law, § 16-701 | MD COML § 16-701 | This Maryland law is the state's veterinary lien law. Notice for services rendered by a qualified veterinarian or commercial boarding kennel operator may be given in person, by registered or certified mail or, if the owner's address is unknown, by posting the notice for 10 days on the door of the courthouse or on a bulletin board in the immediate vicinity of the courthouse of the county where the animal is located. If the animal is not claimed and taken by the owner within 10 days of the date the notice is given or posted, the owner forfeits his title to the animal. | Statute | |
| MD - Liens - § 16-401. Lien for care or custody | Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 16-401 | MD Code, Commercial Law, § 16-401 | Under Maryland law, any person who owns or operates a livery stable or other establishment who gives care or custody to livestock will have a lien on the livestock for any reasonable charge relating to: board and custody, training, veterinarian and blacksmith service, and other maintenance expenses. If the lien is not paid within 30 days after payment is due, the owner of the livery stable is entitled to sell the livestock. | Statute |