Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v. Lloyd | 2002 WL 31928523, 134 A Crim R 441 | 2002 NSWADT 284 |
Appeal of agency determination of veterinarian malpractice for failure to detect ring worms in a cat. Long case with full discussion of process of administrative hearing and the standards by which to decide if an action is malpractice. |
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 | |
| MT - Veterinary - CHAPTER 18. VETERINARY MEDICINE | MCA 37-18-101 to 37-18-807 | MT ST 37-18-101 to 37-18-807 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| SC - Veterinary - Chapter 69. Veterinarians. | Code 1976 § 40-69-5 to 305 | SC ST § 40-69-5 to 305 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws amended in 2006. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| WA - Lien, cruelty - 60.56.025. Lien created for care of animal seized by law enforcement officer | West's RCWA 60.56.025 | WA ST 60.56.025 | This Washington law states that if a law enforcement officer authorizes removal of an animal pursuant to chapter 16.52 RCW, the person or entity receiving the animal and aiding in its care or restoration to health shall have a lien upon the animal for the cost of feeding, pasturing, and caring otherwise for the animal. | Statute |
| Price v. Brown, V.M.D. | 131 Montg. Co. L. R. 150 (1994) | Plaintiff's bull dog went to defendant veterinarian for surgery to correct a prolapsed urethra. The dog died a few days later. The plaintiff then sought to recover the value of the dog on a strict theory of bailment. Defendant filed a preliminary objection asserting that this doctrine was inapplicable and could not afford relief. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim from which relief could be sought and dismissed the complaint. The court, however, allowed the plaintiff to amend the compliant.In holding to sustain the defendant's preliminary objection, the court reasoned that since veterinarians are part of a professional discipline, in order to recover damages for the injury or the death to an animal entrusted to a veterinarian's care, a plaintiff must prove professional negligence instead of a bailiff arrangement. | Case | |
| Hohenstein v. Dodds | 10 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 1943) | 215 Minn. 348 (1943) | This is an action against a licensed veterinarian to recover damages for his alleged negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff's pigs. Plaintiff alleged defendant-veterinarian negligently vaccinated his purebred pigs for cholera. The court held that a n expert witness's opinion based on conflicting evidence which he is called upon to weigh is inadmissible. Further, a n expert witness may not include the opinion of another expert witness as basis for his own opinion. | Case |
| Durocher v. Rochester Equine Clinic | 629 A.2d 827 (N.H. 1993) |
Plaintiff horse owner appealed from the orders of the Merrimack County Superior Court (New Hampshire), which dismissed his action for veterinarian malpractice for failure to designate an expert medical witness to prove that the owner's horse was permanently injured, and that defendant veterinarians' negligence caused such injury. On appeal, the court agreed that no medical expert testimony was necessary to determine whether a veterinarian was negligent in operating on the wrong animal. However, the court held that expert testimony was necessary to assist jurors in this case on the issues of causation and injury, and generally as to the standards of veterinary care. |
Case |