Yeh sure, you mentioned Class Action Suit where their's no money involved for them to have to come up with Uh, no, I said no such thing :) I said YOU wouldn't have to come up with money to pursue that. They, if liable, end up paying HUGE moneys, far huger than what they'd pay if you alone filed suit.
just maybe take this item off the shelf? That would be likely on top of the major moneys. Why don't you go ahead and research famous class action suits :)
They'd just develope another. Medicine will likely ALWAYS be developed. But they may (depending on the ethics of the PEOPLE) be into more testing before they do.
Sorry, that won't do. I want these assholes to pay through the ass for what they did. Good, then read above, again, so you are clear on what I have said, OK?
You also mentioned the courts would look at my animal as "property"? Read here. (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter9-6.html) State's vary on the "sentimental value" to an owner on this "property." Usually it will involve when you lost the pet.
OK, property that was taken away from me. So what about that? Huh? This is what I stated above. The fair market value of property is what we can recoup in terms of property, always. When we lose our pet, what is the FMV? As you can imagine, not much. One of my very part time volunteerism efforts is helping a shelter near me (all cat shelter) get homes for shelter cats. We can't GIVE cats away. In fact I once chose to pay a shelter to house 3 cats that would otherwise have gone to a kill shelter - $200/cat. And, because the owner of that shelter didn't want to take the money (the owner as an elderly lady who'd lost all after losing her job, lost her home, and was not permitted to bring all her pets to her new home) - but we successfully insisted - I also made that shelter my "pet" shelter and I have them in my list of monthly bills, where I donate each month. Not a lot, things are tight around here as they are for everyone - but a little bit each month, I figure it will pay for a few of the cats to be fed each month. But anyway, FMV is TERRIBLE for pets.
I'm 62, never married, no kids just this little precious cutie and if you could look into her eyes the way she looks back at you, she really doesn't
know her days are limited but when I take her to eventually get put down
she's gonna want to know why? No she won't. She will not have a clue her time is near. YOU want to know why, YOU are heartbroken - she won't know. You will be petting her and snuggline her as she goes to sleep... It is TERRIBLE what has happened to her. And if you want whatever justice is available, consider that suit.
Do I tell her uh, sorry cutie but that's the way it's gotta because some asshole took you from me and that's the way it is. What you choose to tell your cat is up to you.
And at least in my state (NY), it's now a felony to hurt or harm or kill an
animal. That would only be intentional hurting. Not negligent. But now that you have shared your state, the big case in NY is
Johnson v. Douglas (New York) March 12, 2001. An automobile driver moved to dismiss claims of pet owners for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and punitive damages from witnessing the death of their dog. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, Zelda Jonas, J., held that pet owners could not recover for emotional distress based upon an alleged negligent or malicious destruction of a dog, which was deemed to be personal property. This followed Jason v. Parks (New York), February 13, 1996. This was a veterinary malpractice case in which the plaintiff sought damages for emotional distress. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department, held that it "is well established that a pet owner in New York cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligent destruction of a dog." http://www.animallaw.info/cases/causny734nys2d847.htm
So you see, you NY voters will have to push your State Reps in the legislature to ALLOW for emotional pain and suffering to a pet owner for the pets injury when it is the result of negligence. You need to use your voting power to change your state's law.
So you need to have evidence
NO, if I gotta sue my vet instead of Phiser or whoever created this shit, Unfortunately, you'd have to prove intent to hurt, rather than negligence.
then that's what it's gotta be. When you talk to your lawyer discuss whether BOTH will be involved. If the vet had no real reason to believe the med was going to hurt (as opposed to help) then in theory, he is no more guilty than you are (you thought it would help not hurt). But, if the manufacturer cut corners on testing, etc., or hid studies indicating this expensive med could have terrible side effect, so that it could go forward with putting it out on shelves after spending milllions in research (i.e. they didn't want those millions to NOT be recouped in sales) - then THIS would be your liable party.
I'm so pissed off about the legalities of what can and cannot be done Do you really think a vet who has been prescribing what the experts have developed to help animals, should be guilty of something when he only followed the directions, after YOU brought your dog to him? I'm not seeing a basis unless you have left out something?
and in the mean time, whoever's using and or creating this stuff is laughing all the way to the bank. Then, again, (repeat), why are you resisting pursuing a class action suit? If I felt strongly like you do about something that happened to my pet (which fortunately our pets are fine), I'd get involved. here http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=15414
Here is a recent suit on a medication: http://www.srdogs.com/Pages/rimadyl.rec.html
I'd contact these law firms, who are already experienced in these suits. You don't have to give up, but you need to take action to pursue with the understanding that the burden is on the plaintiff to develop a legal evidentiary case, not on the defendent to disprove. With a class action, the cost of the expert testimony is spread out over MANY plaintiffs, one plaintiff is not having to come up with $20k to pay an expert for his help. Rather 20,000 plaintiffs (or some high number) share the cost, and usually, it is settled so that the defendent PAYS the costs of Z for "costs", then pays XX to be split among plaintiffs AND YYY to be paid for the attorneys fees of the plaintiff.