Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doc911
Sorry I didn't realize you dog suffered further damage due to the treatment he recieved. You only mentioned that the wires came out. Maybe they should have used a stronger glue so the dog could have pulled his teeth out instead. Then you would have a case for liability of damages. The glue did exactly what it was supposed to do. It held until your dog pulled it loose.
If A doctor placed a cast on my leg and I went home and tryed to pry my way out of it (as I'm sure your dog did with the wire) and the cast came off. I would have no case. And neither do you
|
You're correct, I have no case because it isnt my dog. I was merely commenting from a legal standpoint. Your argument is flawed and here's why. You are dealing with an animal, not a person. With a person a doctor has reasonable expectation that they are not going to try to pry a cast off, in the case of an animal a vet should also have reasonable expectation that they WILL try to pry whatever is on them. Now, if he was told this may not work then thats one thing. If he was not told that then the dog owner has reasonable expectation that it will work and was simply following the recommendations of the vet. A vet, especially a specialist should know what types of breeds are more prone to this and should have taken this into account. It is also unreasonable to expect a dog owner to watch over the dog 24 hours a day for 6 weeks to prevent the dog from trying to get them out.