Vet lost our dog and threw us out

[LdiJ]

What do you mean I relied on the vet for ordinary care that I did not take myself? I'm confused by what you mean by that.

I am actually confused about that too, because you had your dog property harnessed. However that doesn't change the fact that you probably have already received accurate answers.

However, if you really want to do this vet harm (and personally, I think that the vet deserves it), then "word of mouth" would probably accomplish your goal better than anything else. No one else is going to want to take their pet to a vet who would be so careless.

My vet NEVER takes an animal outside....PERIOD.

 

[jdmba]

secondly, the payment was a REFUND for services rendered for the other two dogs. NOT for the loss of the dog concerned with this post.

Really? Why did the vet say "THERE we're even"??? Even for what? Are you saying the vet handed the check over independently of the lost dog incident? Don't be ridiculous.

But even if you want to pretend that the check had nothing to do with the lost dog, are you really going to argue that a jury couldn't logically conclude otherwise, and that the check is therefore not relevant in a lawsuit?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

and by the way, WHAT THE HELL does a trademark infringement case from 1977 IN COLORADO, have to do with the current post?

Filing a comprehensive post-trial opinion the United States District Court for the District of Colorado entered judgment on the jury's verdict, permanently enjoined Goodyear from infringing on Big O's trademark, and dismissed Goodyear's counterclaim for equitable relief. 408 F.Supp. 1219. Goodyear appeals that judgment.

A more on point argument should have been the subsequent remedial measures rule .

Rule 407.Subsequent Remedial Measures.

When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product’s design, or a need for a warning or instruction.71

Clueless? If I'm so clueless then tell Turbo where you hang your law degree. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you'd know that subsequent actions are NOT admissible to provide culpability.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I am actually confused about that too, because you had your dog property harnessed. However that doesn't change the fact that you probably have already received accurate answers.

However, if you really want to do this vet harm (and personally, I think that the vet deserves it), then "word of mouth" would probably accomplish your goal better than anything else. No one else is going to want to take their pet to a vet who would be so careless.

My vet NEVER takes an animal outside....PERIOD.

As I said many times before, if this is brought before a judge, the first question from the defense is what warning was given regarding the leash and it's effectiveness to hold the animal? The poster had every right to tell the vet's employee that she would take the animal out but did not. The poster had every right to inform the vet's employee that the leash was not sturdy enough to hold the dog. She did not. Why? because it was.

Simply because the animal got loose (and we have yet to be given any evidence of negligence on the part of the employee) is not enough to substantiate a finding of negligence on the part of the employee. From the facts presented, the same could have happened to the poster had she taken the animal outside.

And Ldji, I would also caution you about giving advice about 'word of mouth' since there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE or legal opinion as to the liability or negligence on the part of the vet. You are inviting this poster to become the subject of a liable suit.

 

[jdmba]

Hey dumbass, suppose you stop leading this poster on and just tell her your LEGAL qualifications for such advice.

And yes, oh idiot one, she files her lawsuit, the vet has HER attorney answer. In the answer the attorney mentions the CHECK and asks for summary judgement. If it's moved to trial the attorney, in the vet's behalf, files a cross complaint for frivilous lawsuit and prays for court costs and attorney fees.

Now go play with the other children.

(1) I'm an attorney.

(2) I seriously doubt a judge will grant a motion for summary judgment if there is a dispute as to whether the check was accepted as payment in full for the dog. Summary judgments are granted when there is no factual dispute. Further, being awarded attorneys fees is even less likely, even if a motion for summary judgment is granted, unless there was bad faith in filing the suit.

(3) Look at your posts in this thread (and in other threads for that matter). You are a defensive and abusive poster who attacks with silly insults when somebody disagrees with you. Do you really think that it is I, and not you, who comes across as a child?

 

[jdmba]

and by the way, WHAT THE HELL does a trademark infringement case from 1977 IN COLORADO, have to do with the current post?

In that case, one of the parties offered to pay the other party. That offer was admitted despite Rule 408.

A more on point argument should have been the subsequent remedial measures rule .

No, that's actually not on point at all, as that rule refers to measures taken to alter a condition that caused an injury so as to make future injury less likely. For example, if you fell on a broken stairwell, the fact that the building owner fixed the stairwell afterwards cannot be used to prove negligence. It seems pretty clear that Rule 407 does not apply to the OP's case at all (at least with regard to the check). I'm amused that you brought this up, however.

 

[Zigner]

As has been said before - this whole problem came up because the harness was either improperly put on to the dog (whether attached incorrectly, or too large or small for the dog) by the owner or it was defective. How do these situations impart liability on the VET?
In any case, it is NOT the vet's fault. It is either the dog owner's fault, or the harness manufacturer's fault.

 

[jdmba]

As I said many times before, if this is brought before a judge, the first question from the defense is what warning was given regarding the leash and it's effectiveness to hold the animal? The poster had every right to tell the vet's employee that she would take the animal out but did not. The poster had every right to inform the vet's employee that the leash was not sturdy enough to hold the dog. She did not. Why? because it was.

Simply because the animal got loose (and we have yet to be given any evidence of negligence on the part of the employee) is not enough to substantiate a finding of negligence on the part of the employee. From the facts presented, the same could have happened to the poster had she taken the animal outside.

And Ldji, I would also caution you about giving advice about 'word of mouth' since there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE or legal opinion as to the liability or negligence on the part of the vet. You are inviting this poster to become the subject of a liablesuit.

Nonsense.

By the way, the word is libel, "counselor." Additionally, I think slander would be more relevant if one were defamed by "word of mouth."

Hmmmm...exposed.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

It seems pretty clear that Rule 407 does not apply to the OP's case at all (at least with regard to the check). I'm amused that you brought this up, however.

as amused as I am in you using a Trademark case to make a point in a small claims post

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And I would suggest you try to update your library. Rule 407 is not solely inclusive of only product liability or personal injury actions. Or I guess you'd suggest that with adoption of Rule 407 the exclusions of inadmissibility have been vanquished since the new rule makes no mention of such.

In language you MIGHT understand, Federal Rule 407 applies to garden variety negligence cases as well as it does to product liablity litigation

 

[BelizeBreeze]

TURBO:

This thread is over for me. I'm not here to argue a federal case for a small claims action. If you believe(after consulting with a local attorney) that you have any foundation for a case against the vet, then pay the attorney and go forward.

You don't have a case, but it's your money and your time. IF you can find an honest attorney to take this case. However, be prepared to compensate the vet when she files a counter suit for costs to defend herself for such a frivilous action.

 

[Zigner]

Nonsense.

By the way, the word is libel, "counselor." Additionally, I think slander would be more relevant if one were defamed by "word of mouth."

Hmmmm...exposed.

Interesting - because in this day and age, word of mouth includes posting at such places as rip-off-report and various blogs...which would fall under the definition of libel.
Please cover yourself...

 

[stealth2]

First of all bubba, the poster is a WOMAN.

Uuuummm... actually... HE says his wife called him from the vet's.

Attention to detail, and all that, Beebs...

 

[stealth2]

because you had your dog property harnessed.

Actually, we don't know that. But I would guess that the dog was NOT properly harnessed as a harness that is properly fitted to the dog should NOT slip off in that manner.

 

[jdmba]

as amused as I am in you using a Trademark case to make a point in a small claims post

First, I was pointed to that case by an evidence casebook which references it to show exactly what I used it for! LOL. What makes you think that an evidence ruling in a trademark case can't be used as precedence in non-trademark cases?

And I would suggest you try to update your library. Rule 407 is not solely inclusive of only product liability or personal injury actions. Or I guess you'd suggest that with adoption of Rule 407 the exclusions of inadmissibility have been vanquished since the new rule makes no mention of such.

In language you MIGHT understand, Federal Rule 407 applies to garden variety negligence cases as well as it does to product liablity litigation

Second, this is pure nonsense. You completely misunderstand Rule 407 and when it's used. I take it you haven't yet completed your evidence course, "counselor."

A subsequent remedial measure is an action that a person takes after an event to reduce the likelihood of that event's reoccurrence. How does this apply in the OP's case? How does handing the OP a check ensure that the vet won't lose dog's in the future? In short, just what the hell are you talking about?

No, I think you should reread both rule 407 (not relevant) and rule 408 (relevant), and you will see that in all likelihood, the OP can use the check as evidence against the vet, as well as the statement "we're even."