Gobsmacked by RCVS reply

yorkshire_terrier_owner

Have given this some thought overnight (partly because this thread has provided me with the material for the next class I teach on tort law) I have some more thoughts on this. I will use legal terminology here where C = claimant and D = defendant.

We are talking about negligence here. In order for negligence to be proved, the facts of the case have to pass the Caparo 3 part test. Part one of the test asks whether there was a duty of care.

At the point of agreeing to the procedure, C will have signed a disclaimer acknowledging that the procedure is not without its risks. Then at the point of discharge, C will have been given advice on post operative care.

Whilst the dog in question died very quickly, in the 2 hours between discharge and death, there would have been a decline in the overall health and behaviour of the dog. The duty of care at the time of death lies with C. If C did not telephone the vet or take the dog back to vet then part one of the Caparo 3 part test fails. Couple that with the disclaimer signed before the procedure (and it is for entirely this reason that these disclaimers exist) then negligence cannot be proved.

D will have liability insurance. Often a settlement is offered, purely to avoid claiming on liability insurance and risk increased premiums. However, the pockets of the insurance companies are deep - deeper than that of domestic pet insurers. They will not want to risk losing the case.

All this is in addition to the 2 arguments I came up with last night. There are several other defence arguments I have, but will not post them in order not to upset the OP. What I will say is that the defence in the case is not very difficult. If I can come up with a strong defence sat at my computer and giving it a little bit of thought, then imagine what a defence barrister can do.

Pursuing this further will ONLY cause YOU heartache and pain - and quite possible financial loss. And you may well find vets in the area refuse to treat your animals - they do talk to each other. Furthermore, in law dogs are viewed as property, and in the unlikely event you were successful, any compensation would be small.

pops5588

hachette, I really hope you listen to YTO's sound knowledge and advice and walk away from this.

imoneyop

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

Furthermore, in law dogs are viewed as property, and in the unlikely event you were successful, any compensation would be small.

From memory (I can't be bothered to go back through all the different threads to find it), that has been pointed out to her already and she is planning to petition for the law to be changed on this.

Undervalued

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

Have given this some thought overnight (partly because this thread has provided me with the material for the next class I teach on tort law) I have some more thoughts on this. I will use legal terminology here where C = claimant and D = defendant.

We are talking about negligence here. In order for negligence to be proved, the facts of the case have to pass the Caparo 3 part test. Part one of the test asks whether there was a duty of care.

At the point of agreeing to the procedure, C will have signed a disclaimer acknowledging that the procedure is not without its risks. Then at the point of discharge, C will have been given advice on post operative care.

Whilst the dog in question died very quickly, in the 2 hours between discharge and death, there would have been a decline in the overall health and behaviour of the dog. The duty of care at the time of death lies with C. If C did not telephone the vet or take the dog back to vet then part one of the Caparo 3 part test fails. Couple that with the disclaimer signed before the procedure (and it is for entirely this reason that these disclaimers exist) then negligence cannot be proved.

D will have liability insurance. Often a settlement is offered, purely to avoid claiming on liability insurance and risk increased premiums. However, the pockets of the insurance companies are deep - deeper than that of domestic pet insurers. They will not want to risk losing the case.

All this is in addition to the 2 arguments I came up with last night. There are several other defence arguments I have, but will not post them in order not to upset the OP. What I will say is that the defence in the case is not very difficult. If I can come up with a strong defence sat at my computer and giving it a little bit of thought, then imagine what a defence barrister can do.

Pursuing this further will ONLY cause YOU heartache and pain - and quite possible financial loss. And you may well find vets in the area refuse to treat your animals - they do talk to each other. Furthermore, in law dogs are viewed as property, and in the unlikely event you were successful, any compensation would be small.

I totally agree.

I think part of the problem here, apart from being emotionally involved, is that the OP does not understand the difference between making a mistake and being negligent.

Undervalued

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

Furthermore, in law dogs are viewed as property, and in the unlikely event you were successful, any compensation would be small.

Indeed.

You could argue the £200 that has been offered reflects the hard commercial value of a secondhand dog.

Sorry to be so blunt.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

imoneyop wrote: »

From memory (I can't be bothered to go back through all the different threads to find it), that has been pointed out to her already and she is planning to petition for the law to be changed on this.

I do believe that has already been tried in the past............ And failed. But I could be wrong on that.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

Undervalued wrote: »

Indeed.

You could argue the £200 that has been offered reflects the hard commercial value of a secondhand dog.

Sorry to be so blunt.

That is how the law works - no emotion, just facts, statutes and precedents.

£200, depending on the age and breed of dog (I believe it was a Chihuahua?) would actually be generous.

Plus if this OP has already refused a fair and reasonable offer, this would also go against them in further legal action.

pops5588

Undervalued wrote: »

Indeed.

You could argue the £200 that has been offered reflects the hard commercial value of a secondhand dog.

Sorry to be so blunt.

Of course it's blunt, but it's true! and that is the nature of the law in this country. It is based on fact, not emotion. The problem is that I sense the OP is looking for an opportunity to make an emotional plea to an animal-loving judge, but this is just not how these things are conducted.

Money-Saving-King

peachyprice wrote: »

Luckily for you your insurers haven't even spoken about this going to court yet, once/if they do you have an awful lot of tracks to cover.

The thing she can only edit or delete her own posts. She's been quoted so many times I don't think there's really much she can do now apart from take the advice given and stop what she's trying to do.

lostinrates

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

The thing she can only edit or delete her own posts. She's been quoted so many times I don't think there's really much she can do now apart from take the advice given and stop what she's trying to do.

Mse could delete them if she asked I think.

YTO's posts are both constructive yet not harsh. Right on the money IMO.

OP seems to me to be in a place where harsh comments are simply not going to help but infact make her route to finding peace over these issues much more difficult. In a state of profound grief and anger comments that are overly harsh can only serve to make oP more angry and defensive and drive her further into actions surely driven by sadness. A sadness most animal lovers understand, even if reaction might have been different.