
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dog bite ruling may have unexpected consequences</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.dogster.com/vet_blog_information_advice/dog-bite-ruling-may-have-unexpected-consequences/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.dogster.com/vet_blog_information_advice/dog-bite-ruling-may-have-unexpected-consequences/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:25:38 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Alison</title>
		<link>http://blogs.dogster.com/vet_blog_information_advice/dog-bite-ruling-may-have-unexpected-consequences/comment-page-1/#comment-476</link>
		<dc:creator>Alison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:28:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.dogster.com/vet_blog_information_advice/dog-bite-ruling-may-have-unexpected-consequences/#comment-476</guid>
		<description>The argument about liability &quot;slippery-slopes&quot; of litigation are profoundly overstated, especially in the world of animal law.  It is one thing to hold that an owner may not be sued for a &quot;first bite&quot; attack, with the reasonable caveat of owner responsibility regarding previously established &quot;dangerous&quot; animals.  It is another to characterize this as the first step in a cascade of common law holdings and passage of positive laws making animal care cost-prohibitive.  Not having read the court decision referenced in the article, it appears that the holding is a judicious balance of liability and risk.

As it is now with regards to costs for veterinary practices as it pertains to liability, veterinarians are barely liable for malpractice or negligence, with only the cost of the animal and a nominal assessment for &quot;intrinsic value&quot; (and that is only in some states).  Animals are considered property under US law, in all 50 states, and only two states (TN and IL) allow for loss of companionship to be considered in the damages awarded (small awards).  So, losing your family member due to negligence on the part of a veterinarian is considered the same as losing your class ring, with the courts declaring that there is &quot;no room for sentimentailty&quot; in assessing the value of a pet.  Thus, veterinary malpractice insurance is virtually unnecessary (as is continuing education, since there is little penalty for outdated knowledge).  In fact, since there is no private cause of action for veterinary malpractice with the state licensing boards, there is a low risk for even professional censure!

The courts are not anxious to change this property status without legislative action in the form of positive law.  In general, the courts tend to lag behind social change by about 15 years (with the exception of racial segregation).  Veterinarians will have ample opportunity to have their voices heard before changes occur, and those &quot;attacks&quot; of kennel workers should be mitigated through training and workers compensation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The argument about liability &#8220;slippery-slopes&#8221; of litigation are profoundly overstated, especially in the world of animal law.  It is one thing to hold that an owner may not be sued for a &#8220;first bite&#8221; attack, with the reasonable caveat of owner responsibility regarding previously established &#8220;dangerous&#8221; animals.  It is another to characterize this as the first step in a cascade of common law holdings and passage of positive laws making animal care cost-prohibitive.  Not having read the court decision referenced in the article, it appears that the holding is a judicious balance of liability and risk.</p>
<p>As it is now with regards to costs for veterinary practices as it pertains to liability, veterinarians are barely liable for malpractice or negligence, with only the cost of the animal and a nominal assessment for &#8220;intrinsic value&#8221; (and that is only in some states).  Animals are considered property under US law, in all 50 states, and only two states (TN and IL) allow for loss of companionship to be considered in the damages awarded (small awards).  So, losing your family member due to negligence on the part of a veterinarian is considered the same as losing your class ring, with the courts declaring that there is &#8220;no room for sentimentailty&#8221; in assessing the value of a pet.  Thus, veterinary malpractice insurance is virtually unnecessary (as is continuing education, since there is little penalty for outdated knowledge).  In fact, since there is no private cause of action for veterinary malpractice with the state licensing boards, there is a low risk for even professional censure!</p>
<p>The courts are not anxious to change this property status without legislative action in the form of positive law.  In general, the courts tend to lag behind social change by about 15 years (with the exception of racial segregation).  Veterinarians will have ample opportunity to have their voices heard before changes occur, and those &#8220;attacks&#8221; of kennel workers should be mitigated through training and workers compensation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
