In a message dated 2/1/2017 9:59:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
proudk911@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Hi Evan-
I think you would know better than I, and is why I ask, but say a product
is the liability of the producer. For example, that we, as breeders of a
puppy/dog… that if a puppy we bred & sold isn’t taught manners by the
owner, the producer of said product is now liable (for the dog biting)— rather
than liability belonging to owner of said property (who lacked in teaching
discipline/lacked in responsibility for proper enclosure/leash laws)? Using
medication as a product example- I thought that medication was strictly
regulated and could only legally be used in the manner for which it was
manufactured for— and to alter that product to something else is criminal by
the
person doing it — thinking of the Tylenol tainting in Chicagoland in the ‘
80s— the only party liable for the deaths by tainted capsules was the
person who put poison in the pills- the stores nor the manufacturer were
liable
for the criminal act— and was the reason “tamper resistant packaging" was
designed)— unless it were to be proven that the medication were tainted at
the factory, in which case the manufacturer (producer) would be liable, but
not the stores who were unknowingly selling tainted product. Right?
Isn’t a “product” still technically “property” (especially once it has
been purchased)? Not that I can know exactly what happened in a court
across the country, but where was the missing argument that an animal (as
property? OR a product?) CAN be “modified” (physically- onychectomy, cropping,
docking, grooming; that it can become ill in the owner’s possession —
mentally- TRAINING [or lack thereof])?
Do not the property liability laws still apply with respect to animals?
For example, a tree is property, and if it falls on your neighbor’s car, you
are liable for damages… Same as if your dog gets loose and bites someone,
you are liable for that too?
Do not animals fall into the category of “potentially dangerous property”
in being that dogs & cats (for example) have TEETH, and often, claws, and
to be at-large is being irresponsible in the care of said property, similar
to not trimming a diseased tree?
What happened to caveat emptor? Did I miss a law concerning
property/products requiring full disclosure?
Just a sidebar: “rat bite fever” is caused by a streptobacillus (a rod
type bacteria that is easily killed by antibiotics), and it has a low
mortality rate - only 10-20% (depending on source) amongst even the UNtreated
-
the child didn’t receive curative therapy then?
Seems just like a shame all around… the death of a child— a precedence
being set by a judge changing the intrepretation of the property laws of
animals (unless the law is truly different in CA where animals aren’t property
and I missed that change). I bet the animal rights nuts are finding ways
to use this ruling as ammunition!
Thanks
Jen P & her Pack thinking Petco needs to file an appeal and get a new
attorney
Man, Jen, you are asking for a lot of information.
Product liability is a full semester class in law school.
The law is different for each state, (something left up to the states),
and while there is some national law, it is more often state law that
prevails.
I am involved now in a hip replacement law suit. I am suing on product
liability, as it was Biomet that designed, advertised and distributed the
product. I did not sue for malpractice against the hospital and doctor, since
I
found the product was defective. We filed in California and have been
moved to Federal Court in Indiana, (where Biomet is located), with 6,000
other cases.
In product liability the manufactures, designers, advertisers, and
distributors all have liability. Whoever is involved in the "stream of
commerce"
can be held liable. The key is proof. If it is faulty as manufactured, then
the distributor may be not liable, it is often proof at time of trial. If
it can be proven that there was an "independent intervening act" that
caused the damages, then it breaks the "chain of causation" and lets off the
hook the other parties.
Dogs in most jurisdictions are property. That makes only the owner, and
not the manufacturer, (in this case the breeder) liable. If the trend
continues, (now it is only in three states that animals are found to be
products),
that they have a court order that found animals to be products. I doubt a
court decision making animals products will stand up under a Court of
Appeals, since you can't design or change the product. On the other hand, with
some of what we see in the ring, maybe you can.
It is an interesting area of the law. More interesting is the new trend
to find the owner of an animal can now claim emotional damages for injury to
their pets. That is only a recent change in the law, and I would like to
think some of my cases helped establish the trend. I have fought for that
for over 30 years.
Should animals be products or property? It depends on what is best for my
client at the time.
And, this legal advice is worth what you paid for it.
Evan
http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
http://www.dogshowjuniors.com/GSYRFindex.asp
http://asgardgermanshepherd.com/
On Feb 1, 2017, at 18:19, (Redacted sender "ELG440" for DMARC)
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If an animal is a piece of property, unless there is strict liability, the
owner has to know, or be on notice of the dangerous condition of the
property to be liable for injuries caused by the property. If you own a
chair,
and it hurts someone, you aren't liable unless you knew it was dangerous.
If someone falls on your property, unless you had notice of the dangerous
situation, you have no liablity.
If a dog is a product, the owner is liable for the damages cause by that
product. This is like a store owner who has medicine on the shelf that is
tainted and causes harm. If they knew or not, they are liable. If someone
manufactures something, they can be liable for the design or how it is
intended to be used. If someone else puts that product in the stream of
commerce, they too have liability.
The lawyers for Petco argued that an owner of a product has to be able to
design or modify the product, and you can't do that with an animal.
The judge rejected that, and said Petco would be in a better position to
know if a rat was infected than the customer, and therefore held Petco
liable for the death of the child from the rat bite.
An interesting fact, and what might have convinced the judge is that most
rats have rat bite fever. So, selling one, makes someone responsible for
damages caused by the rat.
I have to wonder what would happen if you got bit by a lawyer?
Evan
http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
http://www.dogshowjuniors.com/GSYRFindex.asp
http://asgardgermanshepherd.com/
In a message dated 2/1/2017 4:04:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rightdogphoto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Evan -
for the non-lawyers among us, in real life what does "product" vs
"property" mean to breeders?
Ruth
=
