Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA - Lien, veterinary - § 4661. Feed, medicine, and veterinary services for horses | LSA-R.S. 9:4661 | This Louisiana law comprises the state's veterinary lien law, which relates only to services provided on horses. Any person who furnishes feed or medicines for a horse or horses, or any licensed veterinarian who furnishes medical services for a horse or horses, to or upon the order of the owner, has a privilege for the unpaid portion of the price thereof upon the horse or horses of the owner, which received the feed, medicine, or medical services. | Statute | |
| TN - Liens, Veterinary - § 63-12-134. Liens and incumbrances. | T. C. A. § 63-12-134 | TN ST § 63-12-134 | This statute specifically allow vets to hold an animal until a bill is paid for treatment, board or care of an animal. | Statute |
| Hendrickson v. Tender Care Animal Hospital Corporation | 312 P.3d 52 (2013) | 176 Wash. App. 757 (2013) | Dog owner brought claims of professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, lack of informed consent, reckless breach of a bailment contract, and emotional distress after her golder retriever, Bear, died following a routine neutering procedure. After the surgery, Bear was bloated and vomiting, and the owner alleged that the animal hospital failed to properly inform her of his condition. As a result, the owner treated Bear with a homeopathic remedy instead of the prescription medication given to her by the hospital and Bear's condition worsened and eventually caused his death. | Case |
| Anzalone v. Kragness | 826 N.E.2d 472 (Ill. 2005) | 292 Ill. Dec. 331 (2005) |
A woman whose cat was attacked while being boarded at veterinarian's office brought claims against veterinarian and animal hospital. Trial court dismissed claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the Court of Appeals reversed holding dismissal was not warranted. |
Case |
| CO - Emergency - § 25-3.5-203. Emergency medical service providers--certification | C. R. S. A. § 25-3.5-203 | CO ST § 25-3.5-203 | This law concerns emergency medical service providers. An emergency medical service provider may provide preveterinary emergency care to dogs and cats to the extent the provider has received commensurate training and is authorized by the employer to provide the care. Requirements governing the circumstances under which emergency medical service providers may provide preveterinary emergency care to dogs and cats may be specified in the employer's policies governing the provision of care. “Preveterinary emergency care” means the immediate medical stabilization of a dog or cat by an emergency medical service provider, in an emergency to which the emergency medical service provider is responding, through means including oxygen, fluids, medications, or bandaging, with the intent of enabling the dog or cat to be treated by a veterinarian. “Preveterinary emergency care” does not include care provided in response to an emergency call made solely for the purpose of tending to an injured dog or cat, unless a person's life could be in danger attempting to save the life of a dog or cat. | Statute |
| MS - Veterinarian License - Chapter 39. Veterinarians. Mississippi Veterinary Practice Act. | Miss. Code Ann. § 73-39-77 | MS ST § 73-39-77 (formerly MS ST § 73-39-19) | This Mississippi statutes provides the terms under which a veterinarian can lose his or her license to practice veterinary medicine. | Statute |
| Southall v. Gabel | 277 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio App. 1971) | 28 Ohio App.2d 295 (1971) |
This case resulted from the alleged negligent transport of a horse that resulted in a drastic change in the horse's temperament (to a "killer horse"), which ultimately led to its destruction by its owner. Before trial, defendant demurred to plaintiff's petition on the ground that the action was barred under R.C. s 2305.11, the act being 'malpractice' and therefore required to be brought within one year after the termination of treatment. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's decision overruling the demurrer to plaintiff's petition was correct, 'the petitioner is based on negligence for the transporting rather than malpractice.' Further, the Court held that until the Supreme Court speaks, veterinarians are not included in the definition of malpractice (reversed and remanded - See , 293 N.E.2d 891 (Ohio, Mun.,1972). |
Case |
| CT - Lien, care - § 49-70. Lien on animals for their keep. Transfer of abandoned animals | C.G.S.A. § 49-70 | CT ST § 49-70 | This Connecticut law provides that when a special agreement has been made between the owner of any animals and a person keeping/taking care of such animals for a price, those animals are subject to a lien in favor of the person keeping the animals. The person keeping those animals may detain the animals until the debt is paid. If the debt is not paid with 30 days after it becomes due, the keeper may sell the animals at public auction after he or she gives written notice to the owner of the time and place at least six days before the sale. Additionally, a commercial boarding kennel or veterinary hospital may transfer abandoned animals to a nonprofit animal rescue or adoption organization. An animal is considered abandoned if the owner or keeper of such animal fails to retrieve the animal within five days of the date on which such owner or keeper was scheduled to retrieve the animal. Written notice notice sent certified, return-receipt requested must first be sent to the owner with a ten-day waiting period before the transfer can occur. | Statute |
| Gabriel v. Lovewell | 164 S.W.3d 835 (Texas, 2005) |
A Texas horse owner brought action against horse farm for negligence and breach of implied warranty in connection with the death of a horse in care of horse farm. On appeal of a decision in favor of the horse owner, the Court of Appeals held that by asking veterinarian if veterinarian told the horse owner that the horse died because it was not brought to veterinary clinic soon enough, the horse farm opened the door, and thus, the previously-rejected hearsay testimony regarding horse owner's conversation with veterinarian was admissible for limited purpose of impeaching veterinarian's testimony. Thus, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict. |
Case | |
| ME - Police Animal - § 164-B. Immunity from civil liability for assistance given to law enforcement dogs, search and rescue | 14 M.R.S.A. § 164-B | This Maine law gives immunity from damages to an emergency medical services person, a security services dog handler or a law enforcement officer who voluntarily, without the expectation of monetary or other compensation, renders first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance to a law enforcement dog, search and rescue dog or service dog that is unconscious, ill, injured or in need of rescue assistance unless it is established that the injury or the death was caused willfully, wantonly or recklessly or by gross negligence on the part of the emergency medical services person, security services dog handler or law enforcement officer. | Statute |