Lawsuits Won’t Compensate Fully for Damages

We mentioned several lawsuit related information, but now the AP is reporting that individual lawsuits won’t net much damage against Menu Foods and others because courts still see pets as property. They are recommending that people file a class-action suit. Some states do recognize the emotional value of a pet, and this makes for a complicated situation.

“The factual variations in the cases will make it very difficult to form a class action,” he said. “Will people have the proof they need to trace the harm done to the animal back to Menu Foods?”

Many more articles related to Menu Foods law suits after the jump.

Howl911 contributed to this list.

8 Responses to “Lawsuits Won’t Compensate Fully for Damages”

  1. Jonathan says:

    http://www.nabr.org/AnimalLaw/.....onship.htm

    I find this link of interest especially for the poor people the has lost a pet.

  2. Jonathan says:

    I doubt the Biological Research industry and Vets will support any laws that will allow people to sue for loss of companionship since it is such a conflict of interest (i.e. they could get sued for alot more including malpractice up to 100,000). So it looks like people will have a powerful lobby against them from the start.

    Class action will be the only way to go since it is a propery damage claim.

    The above link I sent is for National Association for Biological Research and they basically are giving thier people a way to fight us.

  3. W. Little says:

    I think it is a darn shame that our animals are considered property. Fortunatley here in Michigan things are changing, for the better. The manufacturers should be ashamed for dealing with companies that don’t adhere to proper practices.

    My animals are like family and I also do wildlife rehab. so don’t tell me animals are property!!!!

  4. C. Maulding says:

    Just a thought - for those of us who have suffered medical expenses (human) due to depression from the loss of their pet - it might be wise to submit records of those. Some may need counsuling or other treatment. Surely, these should be recoverable in a law suit. My prayers are with all pet lovers. We are still waiting and watching on one cat in particular and another one is possible. The 3rd cat is our smart one and hunts for her food. Has always refused “store bought” food. Shame when a cat has more sense than we do.

  5. Anna says:

    For those who want to properly assess the VALUE of domesticated human companions, I urge you to check out the involvement of RESCUE PETS during the 9/11 terror attacks.

    First, I can personally testify that most of us rescue workers could NOT have “made it” those first two weeks after 9/11 without the presence and help of the RESCUE DOGS, who were primarily pets of people who gave them training. They not us found survivors and victims. How do you put a value on that. (I’d like to stick Rosie O’Donnell at the bottom of an earthquake pile and hear her whine about the value of pets then.)

    Second, for those of us so emotionally hit from direct exposure to those attacks, the “first” PRESCRIPTION (for those of us with intelligent counseling, who wished to avoid being chemically “dead-ended” by prescription drugs) WAS TO GET A COMPANION ANIMAL - specifically a dog or a cat. How do you put a value on that?

    Third, my pet who emotionally rescued me years after the attacks was sicked by this poisoned pet food. Luckily I home feed him mostly so he had a close call. How do you put a value on that? That question should be posed to the CEO of CHEMNUTRA at this point.

    I consider the trail behind CHEMNUTRA nothing less than CORPORATE TERRORISM fueled by greed and evil. Money sanctions do not stop this, the specter of jail won’t, indeed, is there any sanction that will put a stop to this? Who or what will rid us of these CORPORATE TERRORISTS?

  6. AnimalBlawg -- Damages: animals and products liability says:

    […] pet food lawsuits (also here, here, and here) (more coverage of pet food recall) have re-raised in the public eye the […]

  7. Ms. Cody Rice says:

    I agree with what most are sayin-animals are NOT property. When you own property it is referring to a non-living thing as wellas disposable. As a humane Educator-I teach Guardianship-not ownership. Find ut more about it at idsusa.org and click on the Guardian Campaign. It teaches the value of life an anti-violence-which this country REALLY needs.

  8. pam says:

    about the pet food recall lawsuits…since cats & dogs are seen as property in the us, it would be better to sue under product liability or fraud. fraud allows for punitive damages…not sure on product liability. it comes down to what the pet food companies knew and when did they know it.


Close
E-mail It