Lawsuit happiness returns

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Mar 22 2007, 04:15 PM) [snapback]410427[/snapback]</div>

Personal injury lawyers need to eat too. Let's feed them the leftover pet food.

 

My vet killed my cat with a botched surgery. I didn't sue, just expressed with them how much they suck, brought my future business elsewhere and bad mouthed them to anyone I know that has a pet. If I felt like suing, however, I would've been entitled to that. I feel that these victims are entitled as well. Pets died and pets are sick. I'm not sure if what they've contracted from the tainted food is curable but if not, the pet owners are going to have future medical expenses in addition to any they currently have in order to treat their pets. I know that competition controls the abuses of many retailers, manufacturers, etc., but the damages that can be assessed for any wrong doing helps a bit to.

 

Here's a fun music video for this topic.

 

There was an astonishing (to me) article in the NY Times two days ago saying that seven of the ten pet deaths tied to this food happened during tests by the company prior to the recall. If you suspect the food is bad and you want to test it, I just don't understand how you don't carefully monitor those animals and make sure they don't die.

 

A lot of litigation nonsense would stop if we made one change, and only one change: punitive damage awards NEVER go to to plaintiff, but go instead to programs or institions devoted to fixing the problems that trigger the lawsuits. A plaintiff can recover actual damages, of course, including compensation for pain and distress (a point I personally disagree with but let it go), but gets nothing of the punitive award. Make that one change, and the bounty hunt aspect of litigation would be greatly diminished.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 22 2007, 06:24 PM) [snapback]410513[/snapback]</div>

Yup Yup. I AGREE!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 22 2007, 06:24 PM) [snapback]410513[/snapback]</div>

Don't be so sure. There are plenty of cases where the victims want to send a message and make the perpetrators pay big so that they think twice before it happens again. I'm sure the pet owners would be in this category. I know I would. I wouldn't care if I got a dime. But I'd want the company to pay big time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Mar 22 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]410495[/snapback]</div>

" NOT FOR RELEASE OVER US NEWSWIRE SERVICES

Attention Business/Financial Editors "

And who releases this? "Menu Foods Income Fund Announces Precautionary Dog and Cat Food Recall"

Income Fund? It's announced by the Income Fund?

Why? So they can sell their stock fast before it hits the fan?

The press release announcing the recall went to the business and financial editors and specifically said not to go over U.S. newswire services.

Interesting choices if they really had the health and safety of pets as a number one priority.

Recall notice

 

[Excerpts]

 

i could understand for costs of any emergency veterinary care, but otherwise i can't see it either.

heartbreak is not fixed by a cash payout. if it is, you're pretty damn heartless...

 

One cat that has not died yet has racked up a $3,000 vet bill and the owners must give daily shots.

But this isn't about money for the pet owners. If they got no money they'd still follow through to send a message to make sure it never happens again.

To the credit of Menufoods they are offering to pay the expenses of any pet where the food resulted in medical costs.

I give my dog food that is graded fit for human consumption. It's health food for dogs. The organic pet food market getting a lot of interest now. Especially with the publication of exactly what the contents of some pet foods can be. (euthanized dogs and cats for one.)

 

I say sue the heck out them! Do what ever it takes to either clean up their act and tighten their quality/security controls or put them out of business. They should be held accountable. News reports today that more pets are dying and that it was a type of "rat poison" that made it's way into the food? Could this be an act of terrorism like the Tylenol tamperings years ago?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 22 2007, 05:24 PM) [snapback]410513[/snapback]</div>

I'm sure you'd feel a lot differently if it were your cat or dog that died.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AuntBee @ Mar 25 2007, 12:55 AM) [snapback]411783[/snapback]</div>

A terrorist would go for our water supply, not our pet food.

More dogs and cats are going to die because renal failure takes a while.

As for intentional tampering, not likely. The food came from two different plants, one in Kansas and one in New Jersey. The only common factor was a change in ingredients to some wheat gluten from a new supplier, apparently imported from China.

As for the rat poison, it could be that somewhere along the line someone sprayed the wheat with the poison rather than putting out bait or traps. Depending on where in the chain this occured they may or may not be able to trace it. If it happened in a warehouse in China, not likely.

I'll bet manufacturers are going to think twice before buying food ingredients from China. If it's traced to China, China may find it difficult to sell wheat and other food stuffs.

With the globalization of manufacturing incidents such as this are going to occur since there is no global agreement or standardization for safety, etc. Aminopterin isn't used in the U.S. That didn't save our dogs and cats from being poisoned with it anyway.

Some standards exist for pet foods that are labeled organic, but for others less so. Pet food could contain chicken beaks, animals that died from disease or even euthanized dogs and cats. There is little regulation or testing for ingredients in pet food. That may change now.

I give my dog an organic dry food whose ingredients are rated fit for human consumption. It must pass tests in order to be labeled that way. I pay more. I worry less.

 

Though abused, lawsuits are a way of providing accountability. Without accountibility, we wouldn't be a democracy. Normally I'm a little bit skeptical of lawsuits, but in this case I have to side with the pet owners. It shouldn't happen again - and if, like Godiva said - they are using low quality sources - and they don't want to have a problem with a lawsuit - then they better find a decent source of ingredients.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Mar 25 2007, 11:51 AM) [snapback]411869[/snapback]</div>

I concur. Despite the Republican mantra that businesses are 'socially responsible' and that it's better for businesses to regulate themselves than to have the federal government do it, the business mind of corporate America really understands only two things - money and greed. Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

Some executive(s) at Menu Foods made the conscious decision to switch their supplier of wheat gluton to one from China. Did they do it because they concluded that the wheat gluton from China was of a higher quality, or did they do it because it was cheaper and more profitable? Now they're paying the price (as well they should) for that decision to improve their bottom line without fully investigating and researching the ramifications of that decision.

It's no different than GM (Corvair) or Ford (Pinto, Explorer) knowingly making decisions to save a couple of bucks per vehicle (which can mean a profit of hundreds of thousands of dollars) based on what it what cost them in possible lawsuits with death/injury involved over the price of omission or cheapening of that part.

 

I also agree a lot of these lawsuits are a way for lawyers to make quick big bucks.

I also agree this is one of those cases why they invented lawsuits in the first place. Menu Foods made a dumb, dangerous decision and must now pay the consequences. Conservatives are always saying people should take responsibility for their actions (which is something I usually agree with the conservatives about). However, corporations should also take responsibility for their actions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Mar 25 2007, 05:20 AM) [snapback]411844[/snapback]</div>

Because they need to be held accountable for the deaths of thousands of people's beloved pets. There are consequences for cutting corners and compromising safety. The next time that they switch suppliers they must know that they have to test the ingredients for safety.