Nova Scotia Pet Owners Launch Class-Action Suit Against Menu

And the lawsuits against Menu continue to pile on…

A Halifax lawyer filed a statement of claim against Menu Foods this past Wednesday. Raymond Wagner is representing Jackie Doucette of Ingonish Beach and “a class of other individuals resident in Nova Scotia who purchased dog or cat food manufactured by the defendants between December 3, 2006 and March 6.”

In the claim, the plaintiffs say that Menu Foods was negligent in the “manufacturing, marketing, promotion, selling, and distribution of (Menu Foods) pet foods in complete disregard for the health and safety” of their pets.

The plaintiffs also state that Menu Foods had a responsibility to ensure any pet foods it manufactured used ingredients that were proven safe for pets. Also the company should have alerted customers once they became aware of the contaminants in the pet food.

They are asking for damages for pain and suffering and costs of veterinarian bills and medical costs.

From The Chronicle Herald:

Ms. Doucette [one of the plaintiffs] is claiming that her four-year-old dog Sissy first became ill in February after being fed Ol’ Roy and President’s Choice dog food. In March, Ms. Doucette took Sissy to a veterinarian, who told her the dog had suffered blood loss and may have ingested poison.

Sissy was placed on intravenous medication by the vet for five days and received a blood transfusion, which improved her health.

In April, however, Sissy again became ill and returned to the veterinarian. Several tests and procedures were performed to determine what the problem was and Sissy was eventually prescribed drugs.

“It was the vet, after the second time around, who basically suggested that it was probably due to the food,” Ms. Doucette’s son, Bob, said in a telephone interview Thursday. “Through all this, my mom was out of pocket quite a bit of money, maybe $1,200 to $1,500 in vet bills, let alone time and expense.”

(Thanks menusux)

7 Responses to “Nova Scotia Pet Owners Launch Class-Action Suit Against Menu”

  1. Donna says:

    Take menu DOWN !

  2. thomas says:

    Yes!!! Another person taking legal action. This is great ! Everyone that can ,should against every pet food company and every party involved in manufacturing and selling the poisonous products.

  3. Stefani says:

    The veterinarians are against us. People need to understand that veterinarians are not allies, they are not kindly animal loving people — some individual vets may be, but as a group, they fight AGAINST pet lovers and AGAINST pets.

    See this from the AVMA Website — the article is called:

    “Adulterated pet food could lead to loss of companionship lawsuits in New Jersey” –
    http://www.avma.org/onlnews/ja.....70715a.asp

    “Veterinary associations such as the AVMA and New Jersey VMA oppose noneconomic rewards for pet injury or death, saying they will drive up the cost of veterinary care and lead to frivolous lawsuits (see the AVMA Policy on Compensatory Values for Animals Beyond Their Property Value).

    “Although the bill is specific to animals that were harmed or died as a result of contaminated pet food, it’d be an easy jump to go from that to loss of companionship of an animal from other causes, such as a vaccine reaction or a surgery that did not go well and the patient died,” explained Richard Alampi, NJVMA executive director.

    Originally, the bill set no limit on damages. But after the NJVMA and AVMA expressed reservations about the legislation, Cohen amended the proposal by capping damages at $15,000 and removing language referring to emotional distress suffered by the pet owner or immediate family.

    The Pet Food Institute, representing manufacturers, also opposes the bill because it singles out pet food with respect to liability and introduces the legal question of the value of a pet, explained PFI President Duane Ekedahl. The PFI board has not taken a position on the economic value of a pet in civil suits, he said, but it is currently evaluating the unintended consequences of litigation that includes personal loss and suffering when a pet is harmed.”

    In other words, the vets are making alliances with the POISONERS. FYI, their claims about driving up the cost of vet care are NOT BASED IN FACT. There is no evidence that would happen — vets pay only about $300 a year on averages for $1 million in insurance already.

    We as consumers have to come together and demand change from within the veterinary industry. We have to pull off their sheeps clothing and show them for the wolves that they are — no insult to real wolves intended.

    When the veterianarians are persuaded to do the right thing and switch sides on this, it will dramatically strengthen the liklihood of successful claims.

  4. Sandi K says:

    This statement above from the article: The Pet Food Institute, representing manufacturers, also opposes the bill because it singles out pet food with respect to liability and introduces the legal question of the value of a pet, explained PFI President Duane Ekedahl.

    WTF?! You have got to be kidding me. Listen, Duhwayne, you cant have it both ways. You cant have your pet food companies marketing food saying they know the pet is a part of the family and then turn around and oppose a bill that introduces the legal question of the value of a pet. We need to demand this mans resignation. With people like him leading the pack, our pets dont stand a chance.

  5. pam says:

    if you make a product and it poisons someone…be it man or animal…your company should be held liable under the law. it’s called product liability. bring menu down and may the others follow!

  6. Stefani says:

    Sandi, veterinarians have it both ways every day: making money off the love we have for our pets, then — when a mistake or action by them harms or kills our pet — saying “it’s a worthless piece of property worth no more than it’s “market price.” Vets are the ones out there most forcefully fighting against the value of our pets being recognized. Why would the pet food industry be any different?

    I hate the PFI, but I find the vets stance even MORE hypocritical, since congress and everyone else wrongly sees the “veterinary” industry as the voice FOR the animals. They are wrong. They are not hte voice for the animals.

    Anyway, it’s not surprising they are in bed with the poisoners. They make money on both ends: $$$ from selling the poison products in teh first place, and $$$ when we take our poor poisoned pets in for expensive treatments to try to save their lives. It is a WIN WIN for the vets, and a LOSE LOSE for us and our pets.

  7. Sandi K says:

    Stefani, our vet was one of the most caring vets there is, she took extremely good care of our KiKi while she was ill, it was all prior to knowing she had eaten the tainted food. She was as much in the dark on what was happening as we were. So while I agree with you, I dont think that the AVMA speaks for every vet out there. You take on the vets, I’ll go after Duhwayne, (-: There’s plenty to go after for everyone in this nightmare!


Close
E-mail It