Need some advice after our Cat was killed

baser999

Surprised the OP had no insurance in place, given vets costs these days.
On a separate note, had OP taken that initial call from the vet and been told the potential costs, what would they have done? Said no, can’t afford that,  let furbaby die or go ahead, we’ll find the money somehow?

maisie_cat

diystarter7 said:

Tucosalamanca said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

What would you suggest as the alternative? Compulsory insurance for pet owners??

Perhaps you can afford to pay hundreds/thousands authorised on your behalf without your consent but I am certain most people can't and many are already on the breadline

FYI. Anyone who spends money on my behalf without my explicit consent will end up paying for it, trust me.

Thanks

Firstly, no vet is going to run up a 30k bill in these circumstances. Secondly, and more importantly in my view, is the welfare of a sentient being.
Turn it around, if you have a animal, would you prefer them screaming in pain while you give consent or would you tell them to do whatever they needed to do?

diystarter7

maisie_cat said:

diystarter7 said:

Tucosalamanca said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

What would you suggest as the alternative? Compulsory insurance for pet owners??

Perhaps you can afford to pay hundreds/thousands authorised on your behalf without your consent but I am certain most people can't and many are already on the breadline

FYI. Anyone who spends money on my behalf without my explicit consent will end up paying for it, trust me.

Thanks

Firstly, no vet is going to run up a 30k bill in these circumstances. Secondly, and more importantly in my view, is the welfare of a sentient being.
Turn it around, if you have a animal, would you prefer them screaming in pain while you give consent or would you tell them to do whatever they needed to do?

Perhaps you are of the view that every cat owner has 990+ plus lying around even when a good proportion of households are in debt, fearing their bills for fuel, and mortgage payments, already behind with their payments and then someone spends an amount that may be easily manageable for you but ask those and others using foodbanks etc.

Turn it around, what would happen to the many cat owners that are in massive debt, fearing eviction, losing their home, not able to feed/clothe their kids and having access to the 900 as mentioned here and it could be easily a lot more

You may be able to fund others spending/agreeing to spend money on your behalf but I'm not and millions could just not pay the
900, never in a life time

Have you not see the deprivation many are living in the last thing they want is a 900 bill that they have no way of paying then the vet chases them, takes them to court and before you know it the 900 has easily doubled with court costs/bailiff letters/etc and where as the family may just have been manging may end up on the street or kids go without

Noy for a second I will accept a third party spends 900 on someone's behalf and the vet/retailer/business expects the owner to pay.

diystarter7

baser999 said:

Surprised the OP had no insurance in place, given vets costs these days.
On a separate note, had OP taken that initial call from the vet and been told the potential costs, what would they have done? Said no, can’t afford that,  let furbaby die or go ahead, we’ll find the money somehow?

Only a small percentage of pet owners have medical insurance for their pets, incredible!

Undervalued

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

I think you have largely missed the point and many of the issue were covered in my post shortly before yours.

The owner of an animal is legally obliged to prevent its suffering, either by arranging for appropriate vet treatment of if they prefer have it humanely put down.

A vet is legally obliged to provide first aid or euthanasia even if the owner can't be identified to authorise or pay for the treatment.

So, as I see it, given that the owner was identified via the microchip (which they chose to have fitted) they are liable for at least the cost of the minimum necessary treatment to comply with the law.

They may have a claim against the car driver but that would depend if it could be proved, on the balance of probabilities that he was at fault. 

Unless the car driver agreed to pay for any vet treatment himself (unlikely) then he is in effect saying to the vet "please do your legal duty".

diystarter7

Undervalued said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

I think you have largely missed the point and many of the issue were covered in my post shortly before yours.

The owner of an animal is legally obliged to prevent its suffering, either by arranging for appropriate vet treatment of if they prefer have it humanely put down.

A vet is legally obliged to provide first aid or euthanasia even if the owner can't be identified to authorise or pay for the treatment.

So, as I see it, given that the owner was identified via the microchip (which they chose to have fitted) they are liable for at least the cost of the minimum necessary treatment to comply with the law.

They may have a claim against the car driver but that would depend if it could be proved, on the balance of probabilities that he was at fault. 

Unless the car driver agreed to pay for any vet treatment himself (unlikely) then he is in effect saying to the vet "please do your legal duty".

Hi
Even without the owner's consent and in many cases inability to pay?

How would an "identified" owner pay if they are already drowning in debt.

My coments like many of the others were not exclusive to this incident they were clearly general comments

For the record, many may not be aware you don't legally have to stop if you hit a cat.  At times people don't even realise they hit a cat as I've seen cats run under the back wheels of a van when they are being chased by another cat (this was another general comments)

Thank you for your post.

Undervalued

diystarter7 said:

Undervalued said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

I think you have largely missed the point and many of the issue were covered in my post shortly before yours.

The owner of an animal is legally obliged to prevent its suffering, either by arranging for appropriate vet treatment of if they prefer have it humanely put down.

A vet is legally obliged to provide first aid or euthanasia even if the owner can't be identified to authorise or pay for the treatment.

So, as I see it, given that the owner was identified via the microchip (which they chose to have fitted) they are liable for at least the cost of the minimum necessary treatment to comply with the law.

They may have a claim against the car driver but that would depend if it could be proved, on the balance of probabilities that he was at fault. 

Unless the car driver agreed to pay for any vet treatment himself (unlikely) then he is in effect saying to the vet "please do your legal duty".

Hi
Even without the owner's consent and in many cases inability to pay?

How would an "identified" owner pay if they are already drowning in debt.

My coments like many of the others were not exclusive to this incident they were clearly general comments

For the record, many may not be aware you don't legally have to stop if you hit a cat.  At times people don't even realise they hit a cat as I've seen cats run under the back wheels of a van when they are being chased by another cat (this was another general comments)

Thank you for your post.

Yes, the vet is legally required to provide first aid or put the animal down at their discretion. They do not need the owner's consent as the owner would almost certainly be committing a criminal offence if they tried to prevent it.

Regarding not stopping, indeed but in this case the driver did at least do the decent thing and both stopped then took the injured animal to a vet. As I said, the driver does not take on any additional liability by doing this unless they choose to do so. Some might say "I am responsible for this animal's injury and I will pay for any treatment" just as they might admit liability for damage to somebody's front wall. However, a condition of their insurance will be not to admit liability so it may not be a legally wise thing to do, however virtuous! 

TBagpuss

Undervalued said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

I think you have largely missed the point and many of the issue were covered in my post shortly before yours.

The owner of an animal is legally obliged to prevent its suffering, either by arranging for appropriate vet treatment of if they prefer have it humanely put down.

A vet is legally obliged to provide first aid or euthanasia even if the owner can't be identified to authorise or pay for the treatment.

So, as I see it, given that the owner was identified via the microchip (which they chose to have fitted) they are liable for at least the cost of the minimum necessary treatment to comply with the law.

They may have a claim against the car driver but that would depend if it could be proved, on the balance of probabilities that he was at fault. 

Unless the car driver agreed to pay for any vet treatment himself (unlikely) then he is in effect saying to the vet "please do your legal duty".

I don't belive that they would have a  claim agaisnt the driver. Cats and dogs are treated differently under the law. Had it been a dog, the driver might have been liable if itwere shown they were negligent (e.g. driving too fast or without due care) although it's likely that contributory negligence on the part of the owner in allowing their dog to run free would extinguish most, of not all, liability, and the dog owner might be liabke for any damage to the car.

Cats are not expected to be under their owner's control in the same way ut the other side of that is that the driver isn't liable (uless, possibly, they deliberaly ran over the cat) 

If the driver told the vet to do eveything they possibly could then they might be considered to have a contract with the vet and be responsible for anything over basic care. However, as others have said, I think as the owner you would be responsible for the cost of the vet providing basic care and euthanasia.  If you don't have pet insurance then your best bet is probably to try to arrange a payment plan with the vet, and to ask for a breakdown of the bill to see whether there wwas more than the basic minimum required.

diystarter7

TBagpuss said:

Undervalued said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

I think you have largely missed the point and many of the issue were covered in my post shortly before yours.

The owner of an animal is legally obliged to prevent its suffering, either by arranging for appropriate vet treatment of if they prefer have it humanely put down.

A vet is legally obliged to provide first aid or euthanasia even if the owner can't be identified to authorise or pay for the treatment.

So, as I see it, given that the owner was identified via the microchip (which they chose to have fitted) they are liable for at least the cost of the minimum necessary treatment to comply with the law.

They may have a claim against the car driver but that would depend if it could be proved, on the balance of probabilities that he was at fault. 

Unless the car driver agreed to pay for any vet treatment himself (unlikely) then he is in effect saying to the vet "please do your legal duty".

I don't belive that they would have a  claim agaisnt the driver. Cats and dogs are treated differently under the law. Had it been a dog, the driver might have been liable if itwere shown they were negligent (e.g. driving too fast or without due care) although it's likely that contributory negligence on the part of the owner in allowing their dog to run free would extinguish most, of not all, liability, and the dog owner might be liabke for any damage to the car.

Cats are not expected to be under their owner's control in the same way ut the other side of that is that the driver isn't liable (uless, possibly, they deliberaly ran over the cat) 

If the driver told the vet to do eveything they possibly could then they might be considered to have a contract with the vet and be responsible for anything over basic care. However, as others have said, I think as the owner you would be responsible for the cost of the vet providing basic care and euthanasia.  If you don't have pet insurance then your best bet is probably to try to arrange a payment plan with the vet, and to ask for a breakdown of the bill to see whether there wwas more than the basic minimum required.

Hi

Yep as per my post, cats are treated different to dogs, pigs, cows etc.
I stand by what I have posted - what happens if a cat owner was living hand to mouth or worse as millions are in the uk and lumbered with a 900 bill.
Thanks.

Undervalued

diystarter7 said:

TBagpuss said:

Undervalued said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

I think you have largely missed the point and many of the issue were covered in my post shortly before yours.

The owner of an animal is legally obliged to prevent its suffering, either by arranging for appropriate vet treatment of if they prefer have it humanely put down.

A vet is legally obliged to provide first aid or euthanasia even if the owner can't be identified to authorise or pay for the treatment.

So, as I see it, given that the owner was identified via the microchip (which they chose to have fitted) they are liable for at least the cost of the minimum necessary treatment to comply with the law.

They may have a claim against the car driver but that would depend if it could be proved, on the balance of probabilities that he was at fault. 

Unless the car driver agreed to pay for any vet treatment himself (unlikely) then he is in effect saying to the vet "please do your legal duty".

I don't belive that they would have a  claim agaisnt the driver. Cats and dogs are treated differently under the law. Had it been a dog, the driver might have been liable if itwere shown they were negligent (e.g. driving too fast or without due care) although it's likely that contributory negligence on the part of the owner in allowing their dog to run free would extinguish most, of not all, liability, and the dog owner might be liabke for any damage to the car.

Cats are not expected to be under their owner's control in the same way ut the other side of that is that the driver isn't liable (uless, possibly, they deliberaly ran over the cat) 

If the driver told the vet to do eveything they possibly could then they might be considered to have a contract with the vet and be responsible for anything over basic care. However, as others have said, I think as the owner you would be responsible for the cost of the vet providing basic care and euthanasia.  If you don't have pet insurance then your best bet is probably to try to arrange a payment plan with the vet, and to ask for a breakdown of the bill to see whether there wwas more than the basic minimum required.

Hi

Yep as per my post, cats are treated different to dogs, pigs, cows etc.
I stand by what I have posted - what happens if a cat owner was living hand to mouth or worse as millions are in the uk and lumbered with a 900 bill.
Thanks.

Just the same as any other legal liability they may have.....

If you choose to own an animal you are legally responsible to prevent it from suffering unnecessarily. You can do that by paying for its vet treatment, having it humanely put down or passing the ownership and responsibility to another person or organisation who is willing to take it on.

There is no "right" to own an animal if you cannot afford to do so. There are charities that help owners who have fallen on hard times or will attempt to re-home animals. Obviously a sudden injury or medical emergency is more difficult under such circumstances than an evolving problem where there is at least some time to assess options.