Dog Groomer Cut my Dogs Leg....Are they responsible for Vet Bill ???????
AL
shears. He has a biting problem and they have it in there file on him.
We also reminded them when we brought the dog in but she cut me off
and said they know, its on his grooming card. The vet bill is $ 400.00
dollars and she said they are not responible because the dog bites and
is hard to handle. Are they Liable ???
Please help ?????
AL
jan_49
think it's Tom Martino??
Anyway, yes, they are liable. You should immediately file a claim in small
claims court. If the dog was unmanageable, they should have ceased cutting
and called you to pick him/her up. Vet bills are not an acceptable result of
grooming appointments. Pink bows are bad enough.
--
Jan
Atheist #2028 -and- University of Oregon alum ...
***** GO DUCKS !! *****
"AL" <NEVE...@YOURBUSINESS.COM> wrote in message
news:jkrp9u01o4f18v15d...@4ax.com...
Naughtius
Well, there's Not Nearly Enough Relevant Facts in your account to give
anything more than a Wild-Ass Guess, but given that They Knew the dog had a
Control Problem... They are engaged in a Business which Requires Knowledge
of Dog Behaviour... Normally Encounter Problems and can be Presumed To Know
How to Handle Same... Could or Should Have taken measures such as Muzzling
the Dog... Restraining In Some Manner while "Grooming".. etcetcetc... They
are Most Likely Liable, Despite assertions to the Contrary, under One or
Another Theory of Negligence...
Naughtius "Bite `im Back, Russ..." Maximus
--
"The law in it's majestic equality
Forbids the rich as well as the poor
To sleep under bridges
To beg in the streets
And to steal bread"
- Anatole France -
Camp Naughtius: http://home.earthlink.net/~billybudd1
Oh yeah... ICQ: 10042320 - OR - Roger Is a Dickhead
And... AIM: Maroon 65 Stang
And... http://www.AudioGalaxy.com Satellite: VeryNaughtius
James Alexander
As a legal matter, perhaps (depending on your state's law).
As a practical matter, probably not. What I mean is that if
you can prove that the groomers were negligent then you
might be able to hold them liable, but proving your case
will probably be difficult. I anticipate that the groomer's
testimony will be something to the effect of "the dog jerked
his leg just as I was cutting, which caused me to
accidentally cut his leg instead of his fur." Even if this
is false, how will you prove otherwise?
Also, if the contract between you and the groomers releases
them from liability for negligence, then you probably don't
have any chance at all because you would have to prove that
they were grossly negligent or worse (e.g., that they cut
your dog intentionally).
If you don't mind gambling a little, give it a try in small
claims court. At worst you'll be out-of-pocket the filing
and service fees. You'll have to find another groomer
(because lawsuits tend to wreck relationships), but you
might have been planning to do that anyway.
Unknown
side of his face. Dr. said most likely he was hit. Also had some
damage on his ear. Is my best bet Small claims court and if so what
are my damages ? And what are my chances the Judge will side with me ?
I watched too many Judge Judy's to know it can go either way depending
on the Judges mood.
Thanks
jan_49
chance in small claims. But here's my question: Is that the first time
they've groomed him? Has he been groomed elsewhere? I'm trying to establish
a pattern of "jerkiness" for this dog. If he's never been knicked before, or
had any complaints about being hard to groom, that would certainly weigh on
your side.
Regardless, I can see a slight cut, but one that goes to the bone is *not*
normal or acceptable, IMO. You should press this.
--
Jan
Atheist #2028
''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and
what I believe-I believe what I believe is right." -- Pres. GW Bush, Rome,
July 22, 2001
Naughtius "The Twinkies Made Me Do It" Maximus
> After having my dog operated on the Dr. found a fresh bruise on the
> side of his face. Dr. said most likely he was hit. Also had some
> damage on his ear.
Forget about the bruise/damage... you don't stand a chance "Offering As
Proof" any of that as Implication, let alone Evidence that Dog Groomers
Intentionally Harmed Spot... even in a Small Claims Action...
> Is my best bet Small claims court
As far as I can tell, it's your Only Bet...
> and if so what
> are my damages ?
I can only say that if it were a Colorado Small Claims Action, you could
only Recover *Actual Damages*... that is, your Out-Of-Pocket Expenses for
Spot's Gaping Wound Veterinary Care... you probably will have no problem
proving [in Small Claims] DUTY, BREACH, INJURY, and *Actual Damages* since,
in addition to other Relevant, Salient Facts Previously Spoken Of, the Fact
that Spot did NOT have a "Cut Clear To The Bone" INJURY when you left him in
the care of Puppy Butchers R Us...
Well... INJURY and *Actual Damages* anyway...
> And what are my chances the Judge will side with me ?
Depends on whether or not the KISS Judge is a Dog Owner himself... or
whether he used to get bitten Every Day on the Walk To School...
> I watched too many Judge Judy's to know it can go either way depending
> on the Judges mood.
Crabby Old Hag, ain't she?
>
> Thanks
Naughtius "Yellow Dog Democrat" Maximus
Bob Richardson
acceptance of risk has not been amply considered here. In short, (basic
fairness) since the fact pattern shows that the groomers knew or should have
known of the dogs prior history, then because of the agreement by salon, and
acceptance of the dog for grooming, the salon waived all rights to a defense
based on conduct of Dog. In my view, the difficulty is establishing a
standard of care (isn't it always?) and showing that the violation of the
standard of care resulted in the harm to the dog. I'd file in small claims
(not advice, just speculation) and find another dog groomer who would
testify as to the normal treatment of dogs, and the deviation from that
standard that was the immediate cause of the damage. Malice would be almost
impossible to prove given the facts, so can't get punitive damages. If you
needed to take off work to care for Dog, you could be compensated for time
off, assuming the judge was an animal lover.
"James Alexander" <jwal...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:didu9u0ghr8fpvp59...@4ax.com...