Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:26:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
239 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/10/pets.property.ap/index.html
>
> Neat! Sounds like a good idea in general. My only misgiving is that it is a
> half measure. It is still true that only animals who have a steward that wants
> to push back will be remedied. So people can still throw flaming cats of
> highway bridges, as long as they're strays.
>
> > But now opening up the 'lets sue somebody' mentality to sue for 'loss of
> > companionship' due to death at the vet...
> >
> > Now negligence aside, for I know that happens, this whole idea reeks of 'sue
> > sue sue!'
>
> So you think that when a vet or a neighbor through malice or negligence kills
> the dog that you got from the pound, your compensation should be the $40 that
> it cost you to adopt it? If so, I'd suggest that you are missing out on the
> greater world of satisfaction that good pets can bring. I'd rather see a small
> but reasonable amount (~$1-10K?) go to the person for pain and suffering and a
> larger fine go into an animal wellfare fund.
>
> > I was watching Judge Judy the other day and a woman was suing her former
> > friends because she was going to move, asked her friends to take care of her
> > cat, and a year later came back for the cat. Her friends, over the year of
> > taking care of the cat and such, say they didn't want to give up the cat.
>
> But the whole point of that show (and the others like it) is to sensationalize
> courts to the lowest common denominator in society. You can't claim that all
> or most animal-related cases are just like that.
>
> > I have grown attached to the dogs we've had thru the years and I was sad
> > when they passed away. But sue? Sue the vet 'cause my dog Sheba died of
> > old age?
>
> While cases like that will certainly be created, you are completely discounting
> all of the legitimate things that will be helped by this.
>
> > (and that'll be a lawsuit that will happen) Death is part of
> > life. Learn to deal with and move on.
>
> So when your neighbor shoots your dog on your front lawn, what do you do?
>
> Chris
And I'm pointing out that we live in society more and more intent on a "Sue
or be sued" mentality.
So I was around 11 years olf. We had a dog named Taffy. Taffy was a
wonderful dog who came to a very unkind end when some construction material
on our houses addition fell on her.
Who do we sue? The scaffolding company? The cement company? The brick
company? It was an *accident*. Looking back, an easily preventable one
(keep the dog in the house) but us kids, well, we were playing around the
garage addition with the dog--we took responsibility for the death of the
dog, and hopefully such tragedy in our family will never happen again. Now
does that open the door for the breeders to sue us for an untimely but
accidental death of a dog we purchased from them?
Now that we're opening up doors all willy-nilly like for people to sue for
more and more money, you think that this law is going to be used for its
intended function? That is to sue for malpractice against an unreputable
vet? Or do you tink that 90 percent of the lawsuits are going to be "Well,
our pet died whilst it was in your care so you get sued by default", even
though the grandmother ran over the cat a few hours before the cat was
brought to the vet.
Because once you open Pandoras Box, you're in it up to your neck.
About the cats off the bridge--I think I alluded to my belief in not harming
animals in my first post--testing and/or otherwise.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) The box is already open. This proposed law is just reminding us that it is open. But we don't want to close it. Lawsuits are the civilized way of settling disputes. (...) But what basis do you use to hold the cat thrower responsible for his (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) Small world. My family had a dog named Taffy when I was a child. Also, don't worry about becoming crotchety at 35. When I was 21 I was always telling my dorm mates to turn down their music. And I'm sure that if I had had a lawn I would have (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) half measure. It is still true that only animals who have a steward that wants to push back will be remedied. So people can still throw flaming cats of highway bridges, as long as they're strays. (...) So you think that when a vet or a (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
