Vet lost our dog and threw us out

[jdmba]

The ONLY comment I'm going to make regarding your post is that if you knew what you were talking aobut you'd be an attorney. The court may in fact determine that the dog is worth more than $350. That DOES NOT however, mean that the poster will have a chance of recovery. And to suggest otherwise is to act irresponsibly on this forum.

Of course the poster has a chance to recover. If the dog was worth more than $350 and the vet's employee was negligent, why wouldn't he?

LOL...I love reading your posts. The stuff about summary judgment and being responsible for the other side's legal fees was amusing.

 

[stealth2]

What does any of this have to do with Marriage, Domestic Partnerships and Other Family Law Matters?

 

[You Are Guilty]

Of course the poster has a chance to recover. If the dog was worth more than $350 and the vet's employee was negligent, why wouldn't he?

Gee, well, uhm, I dunno, maybe that small matter of the OP accepting the $350 check?

I'd provide the legal term for it, but I'll leave that to the experts

 

[Turbo&Auto]

There isnt a spot for vet law, so I thought this fit better then anything else. If you dont like it here, feel free to move it to the appropriate forum.

Belize, I'm def not ruling out what you have said today. Its an opposite side of the arguement and all comments are welcome. I usually find, about anything, listen to everyone and form an opinion based on all the info. This has worked for me many times in the past and I plan on sticking to it.

Thanks for everyones comments, keep em coming.

 

[seniorjudge]

After reading about your loss and how it happened, I cannot see a case for you anywhere, especially since you took $350 for the dog.

Small claims court is for money damages, not principle, so if you want to sue the vet in small claims, have at it.

But the judge will say that you agreed by your actions that the dog was worth $350 and you lose since you took the dough.

 

[MyHouse]

If I understood correctly, you are more interested in punishing the vet than getting money for your loss. Perhaps there is some kind of professional organization for veterinarians that you contact to file a complaint. I'm very sorry that your dog got lost. I hope that somebody found it and is taking care of it.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Of course the poster has a chance to recover. If the dog was worth more than $350 and the vet's employee was negligent, why wouldn't he?

LOL...I love reading your posts. The stuff about summary judgment and being responsible for the other side's legal fees was amusing.

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.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

There isnt a spot for vet law, so I thought this fit better then anything else. If you dont like it here, feel free to move it to the appropriate forum.

Belize, I'm def not ruling out what you have said today. Its an opposite side of the arguement and all comments are welcome. I usually find, about anything, listen to everyone and form an opinion based on all the info. This has worked for me many times in the past and I plan on sticking to it.

Thanks for everyones comments, keep em coming.

Not a problem. However, before you consider jdmba's advice, ask him where his law degree is hanging?

 

[Turbo&Auto]

I dont mean just him. I'm talking about my parents, wife, etc.....

 

[jdmba]

Gee, well, uhm, I dunno, maybe that small matter of the OP accepting the $350 check?

I'd provide the legal term for it, but I'll leave that to the experts

The only way the check would discharge the vet's obligations in this matter (assuming she does have an obligation to pay for the dog) is if the check is worth more than the dog, if the check stated something like "payment in full for the lost dog," or the OP otherwise made an agreement to accept the check in satisfaction of the lost dog.

As a side note, the check can actually be used as evidence against the vet (i.e. evidence that the vet acknowledged responsibility for the lost dog).

 

[Turbo&Auto]

I told her when she handed it to me that we werent even close to even.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I told her when she handed it to me that we werent even close to even.

As I said, as jdmba where his law degree is hanging and where he practices law. You do NOT get to indicate for what the check is for or if it is taken under conditions. The fact is you took it, the vet or her employee used ordinary care, YOUR lease / halter broke and you put the haldter/lease on your dog.

What about that do you NOT understand?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

As a side note, the check can actually be used as evidence against the vet (i.e. evidence that the vet acknowledged responsibility for the lost dog).

Under what demented theory of law did you pull that crap out of your butt?

 

[jdmba]

Under what demented theory of law did you pull that crap out of your butt?

That "demented theory" comes from discussions about FRE 408 (which PA seems to follow). If there is no claim, or no dispute about the claim or the amount due, or if the statement of fault occurs outside the context of compromise negotiations, the furnishing of valuable consideration will be admissible to prove liability.

OP: "I went outside and was talking with my wife and a couple friends that came over to help us search. The vet comes out with a check for 350, the amount of the visit the day before, hands it to me and says THERE we're even. I laughed again, took the check and told her we're NOT EVEN CLOSE to even. She then told me to get off of her property that I'm not a customer and if I dont leave ASAP she will call the police on me. I left......"

It doesn't sound like the check was given during compromise negotiations, or in response to any claim made by the OP. According to his original post, he was still in the process of searching for his dog when the vet came out, handed him a check, and claimed "we're even" (which also may be used against her in court, by the way).

See Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 561 F.2d 1365 ("The discussions had not crystallized to the point of threatened litigation") if you're still confused.

EDIT: After writing the above, I started to think: "Maybe he's not questioning whether the check would be admissible because of Rule 408. Instead, maybe he's clueless as to the logical inferences that can be made, and of the check's relevancy." Given your vast misunderstandings of the law in past threads (as well as in this one), I now suspect that is the case.

Here's something that should clear things up for you (I dug this up out of an evidence casebook): "One plausible inference to draw from offers of compromise is that those making the offer...believe they were at fault in the incident giving rise to a claim against them. If they have this belief, one can then make the further inference that they were in fact at fault. In short, one way in which compromising or offering to compromise a claim is relevant is as a tacit admission of fault or liability."

 

[BelizeBreeze]

That "demented theory" comes from discussions about FRE 408 (which PA seems to follow). If there is no claim, or no dispute about the claim or the amount due, or if the statement of fault occurs outside the context of compromise negotiations, the furnishing of valuable consideration will be admissible to prove liability.

OP: "I went outside and was talking with my wife and a couple friends that came over to help us search. The vet comes out with a check for 350, the amount of the visit the day before, hands it to me and says THERE we're even. I laughed again, took the check and told her we're NOT EVEN CLOSE to even. She then told me to get off of her property that I'm not a customer and if I dont leave ASAP she will call the police on me. I left......"

It doesn't sound like the check was given during compromise negotiations, or in response to any claim made by the OP. According to his original post, he was still in the process of searching for his dog when the vet came out, handed him a check, and claimed "we're even" (which also may be used against her in court, by the way).

See Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 561 F.2d 1365 ("The discussions had not crystallized to the point of threatened litigation") if you're still confused.

First of all bubba, the poster is a WOMAN. Attention to detail is important should you ever consider actually GOING to law school. And 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.

So if you ever decide to learn to read properly you might catch on.

Now, since you believe that the vet is responsible to the poster for the poster's OWN negligence in placing the leash and muzzle on her OWN dog I'm sure that the poster will accept your offer to bring the suit in the courts for her.