Gobsmacked by RCVS reply

Valli

YTO - you have the qualifications and experience, judging by what you have posted, to assess the likely outcome of this case.
And it concurs with what many othe rposters have also suggested - yet hachette chooses to ignore.

So I predict that her insurers will NOT fund any legal fight.

Should she pursue this she will have to fund it herself.

Her inability to accept her loss and move on is eating away at her.

We ALL have to bear loss in our lives Hachette; and sometimes those losses are unexpected which makes them even harder to bear.

You are still lashing out in anger. You refute suggestions that you would benefit from counselling.

It's all so very sad. Maxie life was lost; now yours seems to be lost, albeit in a different way, also.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

I'm utterly shattered and I just realised I forgot to eat my pudding. Gutted.

Nighty night all

suzeesu2000

Can I ask, if you had got the result you would have liked to have (some kind of action against the vet) would it change the outcome?

Sadly, your dear pet would still be gone, you would still be heartbroken.

It's okay to be angry but there does come a point when you have to let the anger go....it ceases to be of use and only causes us to become bitter, the only emotion you cannot give away. Let it go now. Grieve for your lost friend and find some peace.

peachyprice

peachyprice wrote: »

So your dog was not a well dog then. He obviously had something very wrong with him to have such a low platelet count in the first place.

hachette wrote: »

Treatable with tablets.

Originally Posted by hachette View Post
Grow up. I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT VET KNEW ABOUT SHE IGNORED IT. Hope your heard it this time.

This doesn't make sense, if the vet ignored the platelet count how could she have told you about the condition your dog had that was treatable with tablets?

When did she tell you, before you signed the consent form? When she sent your dog home? After he died?

I'm guessing by your reaction that you knew more than you have admitted here.

MothballsWallet

hachette wrote: »

Report sais:Quote
5.17 I am satisfied that 4 criteria for demonstrtion of negligence viz;

A. Presence of a dute of care
B. Breach of that duty
C. Other considarations
D. Occurrence of a foreseeable loss

Have been demonstrwated in this case against Ms... and Mrs ....

5.18 Report ends.

What's this from? The forensic vet report?

If so, the forensic vet was engaged by you and cannot be seen as completely impartial, there's a (potential) conflict of interest here, so wouldn't necessarily carry much legal weight.

Most people who've suffered your loss have an independent (either jointly- or court-appointed) expert conduct their own investigation and report to rule out potential conflicts of interest.

If the vet (or her insurer) decides to counter claim against you, they'll have a lot more money to use, and a libel claim would see you doing all the work in court to prove what you said was true, they don't have to do much at all.

That would probably make you feel even worse having to relive what happened.

Nicki

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

Sigh.

A very quick search on Google gave me the following links to your posts on here, but also duplicate posts on 2 other forums:

http://mysmelly.com/Archive/NegligentCausedDogsDeath/cmqqg/post.htm
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4828494
http://community.preloved.co.uk/forums/discussion/96017?startrow=1#983536

Now bearing in mind I have already said I have a legal background, if I was the defence in this case, within 1 minute I have my defence - I would argue firstly that the case would be difficult to hear in court because you have posted in the public domain and included facts that easily identify the case. Therefore, any (unlikely) hearing before a jury could would be prejudicial. Secondly, I would argue that you have launched an online attack on the vet and RCVS and I would have enough evidence to prove that your motive for bringing a case is questionable.

Those 2 things alone would be enough to put a halt to your case.

I'm absolutely sure that If I spent the next few hours going through all your posts, I would have several other arguments up my sleeve. However, it is late. I am going to go and let my pack out and head off the land of nod.

Good night.

:eek: Do you really teach law :eek::eek: in the UK?

Negligence cases aren't heard by juries in the UK. I think you have been watching too many US dramas. Negligence cases are heard by judge alone and have been since well before I did my law degree in the 1980s! I am still a practising lawyer and the right to a jury trial for civil cases of any kind has been almost entirely eroded. Even defamation cases which were the last bastion from January this year will usually be heard by a judge without a jury.

Also civil proceedings don't become active until a date has been set for trial, so this isn't sub judice for contempt purposes as the OP hasn't even issued a claim form and judges aren't as easily swayed as all that.

Finally, if you have a good cause of action your motive for bringing legal proceedings is irrelevant, much less a reason to have the action struck out.

Personally, having read this thread I don't think the OP would be well served by bringing proceedings and that it won't give her the remedies she wants but giving legal advice which is 100% wrong in content in an attempt to bully the OP is unforgivable if you are genuinely a legal professional and I am horrified that this is also what you might be teaching a whole new generation of students!

ETA just a link to back this up, as this thread demonstrates anyone can claim to have legal expertise and training. However, this is the law database of Pinsent Mason a leading city law firm, and if you look under the section headed "Trial" you will see that Yorkshire terrier has vastly misstated the law in her posts on this thread

http://www.out-law.com/en/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/court-procedure/an-overview-of-civil-proceedings-in-england-and-wales/

hachette

MothballsWallet wrote: »

What's this from? The forensic vet report?

If so, the forensic vet was engaged by you and cannot be seen as completely impartial, there's a (potential) conflict of interest here, so wouldn't necessarily carry much legal weight.

Most people who've suffered your loss have an independent (either jointly- or court-appointed) expert conduct their own investigation and report to rule out potential conflicts of interest.

If the vet (or her insurer) decides to counter claim against you, they'll have a lot more money to use, and a libel claim would see you doing all the work in court to prove what you said was true, they don't have to do much at all.

That would probably make you feel even worse having to relive what happened.

No offense but you don't know all the facts. Lets this tread lie down for a while until I get my solicitors view.

paigesaunt

I really hope hachette gets somewhere with this, if only to prove some of you wrong! Some very rude and unnecessary comments. If the subject bores you, don't read it!

hachette

peachyprice wrote: »

This doesn't make sense, if the vet ignored the platelet count how could she have told you about the condition your dog had that was treatable with tablets?

When did she tell you, before you signed the consent form? When she sent your dog home? After he died?

I'm guessing by your reaction that you knew more than you have admitted here.

All I have to say to this AGAIN is dear or dear. Sorry

hachette

Nicki wrote: »

:eek: Do you really teach law :eek::eek: in the UK?

Negligence cases aren't heard by juries in the UK. I think you have been watching too many US dramas. Negligence cases are heard by judge alone and have been since well before I did my law degree in the 1980s! I am still a practising lawyer and the right to a jury trial for civil cases of any kind has been almost entirely eroded. Even defamation cases which were the last bastion from January this year will usually be heard by a judge without a jury.

Also civil proceedings don't become active until a date has been set for trial, so this isn't sub judice for contempt purposes as the OP hasn't even issued a claim form and judges aren't as easily swayed as all that.

Finally, if you have a good cause of action your motive for bringing legal proceedings is irrelevant, much less a reason to have the action struck out.

Personally, having read this thread I don't think the OP would be well served by bringing proceedings and that it won't give her the remedies she wants but giving legal advice which is 100% wrong in content in an attempt to bully the OP is unforgivable if you are genuinely a legal professional and I am horrified that this is also what you might be teaching a whole new generation of students!

ETA just a link to back this up, as this thread demonstrates anyone can claim to have legal expertise and training. However, this is the law database of Pinsent Mason a leading city law firm, and if you look under the section headed "Trial" you will see that Yorkshire terrier has vastly misstated the law in her posts on this thread

http://www.out-law.com/en/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/court-procedure/an-overview-of-civil-proceedings-in-england-and-wales/

Thank you for that link I will read this more tomorrow when my mind is more clear.