Should I take vets to court??

ceebeeby

Hi Eveie,

I'm sorry to hear of your kitten.

To be honest, to stop yourself and your family becoming anymore upset about the entire business, I would leave it where it is. Either take what's being offered, or don't (ask vet to donate it to charity).

As you've said, you're unlikely to get another cat, and therefore you won't have contact with the vets.

Nothing will bring the kitten back, and nothing will be able to compensate you adequately. Money won't make you happy - you'll still be cross afterwards, and your kitten will still be gone.

To fight through courts, rake it all up, have family members make statements - not worth it imho for the amount it would upset you.

Leave the fight and allow the family to grieve.

Best of luck

beks

DrScotsman wrote: »

Where did you get that from?

I did say 'if I am right' and 'I don't think'. I was not stating it as a fact but my thoughts -I have had a lot to do with small claims recently (nothing like this situ though). The amount would only amount to small claims but I am not sure it would be suitable.

eveie189 - I dont think collars are always used - we did not get a collar either, but our cats left their wounds alone (we did have one for our dog though). No idea if they are normally issued for cats

I do think you must have been devastated and I feel very sorry for the poor cat but I still don't think you would be able to prove negligence in court. I think you need to draw a line and try and move on although I do understand your distress.

geri1965_2

eveie189 wrote: »

6. I do not want a dog, I only mentioned this is because I wanted you to see my point that I could never get another cat despite always having one but does that mean they should not give me the £100 for a cat. My point is that when the pain has gone I may want another pet (just not a cat) and this pet may cost more than what has been offered. This is not my fault as I should still have my cat.

They have offered you £100 towards a new cat (or dog, or whatever it is you want to get).

This is more than enough as there are hundreds and hundreds of animals in rescue centres needing new homes.

tandraig

sorry - but i still think the kitten should have been fitted with a collar. or lampshade as i call them. the vets on the high street must fit them as standard as i see so many coming out with them. and when my cat was neutered oh about 12 years ago - he had one too!
when i discovered my dog busily ripping out her stitches i immediately covered them with one of the kids nappies! only after replacing the stitches did the vet fit a collar. with the ninety quid for stitch replacement and ten for collar which we could barely afford - we werent happy!!! would have been happy to pay for collar in first place!
I understand hun - you are upset and not sure who to blame. take your time hun. but understand the courts wont place the same weight on your distress as you do. they will look at monetary value.

trudij

Quote:
Originally Posted by eveie189
6. I do not want a dog, I only mentioned this is because I wanted you to see my point that I could never get another cat despite always having one but does that mean they should not give me the £100 for a cat. My point is that when the pain has gone I may want another pet (just not a cat) and this pet may cost more than what has been offered. This is not my fault as I should still have my cat.

They have offered you £100 towards a new cat (or dog, or whatever it is you want to get).

This is more than enough as there are hundreds and hundreds of animals in rescue centres needing new homes.

sorry - but this sounds a bit like you are going to expect the vets to buy you a horse if thats what you fancy next - where on earth would it stop??!!!

I honestly think that you need to accept their very generous goodwill offer, and let your poor kitten rest in peace. This is doing nothing to help you remember her fondly. (imo!)

Just out of interest - what sort of kitten was she?? I doubt its relevent at all unless you proceed and are expected to produce your reciept for buying her when you get to court, im just curious.

cakeordeath_2

Ruby_Moon wrote: »

How the hell can you blame someone else for your own stupidity and neglect!? It wasn't the vet who allowed her to pull her stitches out.
Think yourself lucky that you haven't been charged with animal neglect and cruelty! :eek::mad::mad:

Ruby_Moon wrote: »

Are you blinkered somehow? Can you not see that the OP was the one who put her own cat in danger?
She allowed the cat enough time on its own so it could pull its stitches out. (She should have had the cat under supervision)
She had left the cat so long it had begun to destroy its own insides. (Again, no supervision)
Upon finding the cat had taken out some intestines, the OP failed to even try anything to stop the cat doing more damage. (She could have wrapped damn duct tape round the cats body to stop it)
The Vet acted on instruction. (The OP said "Put her to sleep")
The OP now thinks somone other than herself is to blame and she wants cash!!
Cash is what it boils down to. If she were given a £1000 cat, she would say "No thanks, I want cash."
:mad:

aren't you the same person who posted the following on another thread?

Ruby_Moon wrote: »

One year my dog ate every single chocolate I had bought for Christmas from under the tree. He has never done it before, so why he did that year was a mystery to us although we blame the Old Jamacia bars as they were very aromatic.
In total he scoffed 4 old Jamacia bars, a box of Maltesers, a box of Dairy Box and a bag of chocolate raisins.
He looked very very happy sitting under the tree, licking his lips when we came in.

you're very judgemental for someone who leaves a dog unsupervised with a potentially lethal amount of toxic substance.

Claire_Bear

All that should be irrelevent anyway as the vet shouldn't have to pay for the OPs next pet in the first place, they've offered £100 as a goodwill gesture, which is very generous IMO. To turn around and say 'but I might want a dog, which costs more than a cat' is just taking the p!ss. Like I said earlier, I'd feel lucky that they'd offered me anything above the cost of the treatment, not entitled to money towards my next pet whatever it might be.

Fire_Fox

DrScotsman wrote: »

I think cakeordeath explained this better than I did. The OP/OP's husband had called the emergency vet not knowing it would cost over £350. When they found out the price there was no time whatsoever for any of those options to be considered, the kitten's life was in danger. So there were only two choices: pay for the operation or pay for it to be put to sleep. They couldn't afford it thus reducing it to one choice (unless you also think the OP was lying and simply didn't care about the kitten's life

Everyone saying this really confuses me, surely there was absolutely no time for any of these options if the stitches were already open!?

And again she said she could not afford the bill and hence could not pay the bill.

And is no one taking into account the state of panic the OP might be in with such a tough decision? She should not be expected to think so completely rationally while in such a timed situation, which is something the reasonable E.V. would take into account.

Well in advance of this medical emergency the OP's family made two key decisions - firstly to get a kitten and secondly not to take out pet insurance. They took a gamble and they lost, they need to accept partial responsibility for the tragic outcome.

gettingready

eveie189 wrote: »

I would just like to xclarify a few things.
1. I was not offered a collar to stop her pulling her stitches out at any time. Also, ironically enough she took her stitches out in a period of less than 10 minutes when I could not see her whereas she could have done it when I was asleep or does being asleep make me a bad pet owner?
.

Just a small coment from me on this one - never heard of a pet being neutered and not given a collar (lampshade) to wear after that, exactly to prevent to stop the animals taking the stiches out and the owner instructed how to put it back on if the pat took it off.

If this has not happened at the vet......

My dog (and several cats before) have all been neutered. Cats were normally good with the collars but Zara, my dog was taking the damn lampshade out several times per day as with her size she was not fitting through the door which was annoying for her.. She also pulled a few stiches out, had an infection in the wound and the whole neutering after the procedure life was a nightmare for a few weeks.

Nobody can keep an eye on their pet 24/7 - I took time off work to look after Zara and was at home with her for 2 weeks due to complications, she still managed to pull stitches out.

Would I sue the vets?

No, not under there was a clear medical negligence - in the case of not providing the collar... there was.

tandraig

I HAVE been trying to point that out gettingready - but is anyone taking any notice? nope - too busy pointing the finger at OP!