New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Tough Legal Issues In Pet Food Cases Against Menu Foods

Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY  

Saturday, March 24, 2007

 

Tough Legal Issues In Pet Food Cases Against Menu Foods

Over at Concurring Opinions, Alfred Yen speculates about the oncoming litigation against pet food maker Menu Foods, with the food apparently tainted by rat poison.

While appreciating his thoughts on possible res ipsa or strict liability potentials in what may be uncharted waters for a mass pet case, there are issues aplenty to prevent easy resolution. Proving negligence will likely be the easiest part (especially with gov't investigations), but that isn't enough for the average owner facing this problem. Here are the big three that I see:
  • The evidence is probably gone. The contents were consumed by the pet and the packaging was likely tossed away when empty (especially if they were single serving sizes); [Addendum: If the food was scanned at check-out at a major market and some type of store discount card was used, it might be possible to track the tainted food from store to home]
  • The pet may be gone, or the evidence of injuries not well documented, making causation very difficult to prove. Pets, after all, get sick without tainted food; and
  • The cost to prove causation may well exceed the value of the case. In New York, at least, the emotional distress of the owner is not compensable, meaning that even if one can prove a pet consumed the tainted food and that it was this food that made the animal sick, the recovery is likely limited to the vet fees and/or the cost of the pet. How much will the veterinary expert set you back as compared to what you may recover?
This may be one high profile case where the efforts of creating new law and proving damages vastly exceed that which may be recovered. While I certainly see aggrieved owners insisting on suit -- as this may be their only means of justice for the loss of a beloved pet -- I think any attorney taking such a case must appreciate it will likely be similar to pro bono work.

[Addendum: A class action simply for the cost of the food is an altogether different issue, but one that is likely to leave very unhappy clients due to the emotional attachment to their pets and the minimal amounts likely to be recovered by any given owner.]

And if the eye is on punitive damages, the road ahead is completely uncharted in light of Philip Morris v. Williams, and the court's admonition that harm to others cannot be considered as part of a jury's determination.


(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)

Labels:


Comments:
My dog was in the hospital for four days and the Vet ran tests. The results show liver dysfunction. I have all my receipts proving purchase of the food involved in this case. This has cost me almost $2,000 in vet bills alone. I'm not interested in a law suite over emotional stress; I feel Menu Foods should take responsibility for what these animals have had to go through. As children we are taught maturity is taking responsibility for our actions even if it was an accident or even if we weren't aware at the time our actions would result in a harmful out come. Menu Foods owning up to this will show integrity as a business and as people. Compensating pet owners for the money they have spent as a result of trusting this company to feed their animals is the only way to right the wrong. It's simple. We aren't vets or animal nutritionist, and even they have trusted this company to give these animals proper nutrition. Menu Foods should realize their responsibility in this matter, anything less will be immoral and in the long run hurt business not only the animal that have no choice in this matter.
If you know how I can honestly and lawfully be compensated for the money I have spent as a result of trusting this company to give my animal proper nutrition please contact me.
Thank you for reading this blog and in advance for your help in this matter.

JfaithB@hotmail.com
 
JfaithB:

My ofice isn't handling any of these cases, but if you look within your state you may find one that is.

--ET
 
Post a Comment



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

 


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.

 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?