Future vets please don't do this

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I went back to look at what is happening. This isn't, from what I read, a lawsuit, but rather a viscious dog issue, which to me is completly reasonable:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/22823277/detail.html

Death threats, though....doesn't seem too reasonable.

I agree with this view:

http://www.semissourian.com/blogs/1452/entry/33860/

Sumstorm has a really good point. I know this thread has taken a lot of random twists and turns, but the initial point was the action being taken after the bite. I do not think the owners were responsible for this bite, or that the dog should be euthanized, but I do think it should be officially declared a Vicious Dog, which means the owners are acknowledging the bite that already happened and the fact that they are responsible to prevent it from happening again. I'm assuming there are specific rules about owning a dog that has been deemed vicious (probably about the amount of supervision required and limits on socialization with other dogs), which is a good thing.

Members don't see this ad.
 
There's a difference between a tech reporting the dog bite for rabies purposes and actually filing charges. I feel sorry for whoever hired this tech, because you know in such a small city everyone is going to hear this story and that hospital is going to lose a LOT of business. Edit: Just read that letter and the DVM actually supports her filing charges.

Getting bit while working at a veterinary hospital is all part of the game. If you get bit, it's your fault(or maybe whoever is holding). Heck, just looking at how those owners treat it like a baby, you should just assume it's gonna bite!

In response to all of the different variations of "it's your fault if you are bitten" or "getting bitten is part of the job", a police officer knows that his job makes it more likely that he will be shot at some point, but if a criminal shoots a cop the answer is not "oh well, it's part of his job, don't punish the criminal" or "its the cop's fault, he must have done something wrong".
working with animals means you are more likely to receive an injury, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences when that happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Actually, I didn't :D When did it stop being Deanna??

I'm not sure when Deanna stopped hanging around/having time for SDN...maybe after graduation? :)

dyachei and I are co-assistant-mods--don't worry, Shanamong, it's a new thing. :) We're still getting used to it ourselves!
 
Definitely not taking sides since I don't have access to full details, but just wanted to throw a thought out there that I don't think has been mentioned. I would never TAKE a pet from an owner, especially not an owner that wasn't paying attention. It is much safer to have the owner hand the pet over to you, ideally while standing. And reaching down to a lap, when you have to lean over the pet??? All things you should avoid in my book, lol. :)thumbup: to whoever was talking about having owner hand them pet butt first, sorry, too lazy to go back to see who it was) It's probably irrelevant to the actual situation, 1, b/c we don't know exactly what happened, & 2, b/c it's done with... but who knows maybe that info'll help keep someone else from getting bit sometime ^_^
 
I would never TAKE a pet from an owner, especially not an owner that wasn't paying attention. It is much safer to have the owner hand the pet over to you, ideally while standing.

It's not clear what happened from what I have read....and some things have said the dog was being handed over and others have said she lifted the dog up, and others that the owner lifted him up... he said/she said. Kudos to you if you are able to be perfect every moment of every encounter with animals and no one ever puts you at risk. 2+ decades of paid work with animals and I certainly can't claim I always do everything perfect every time. And having an owner hand an animal over to you could result in the exact same type of bite; lots of owners aren't skilled at handling their own animals. Ideally, the dog is put on the floor with a leash attached and will willingly walk with the employee without issues. Then again, ideally a dog won't bite a person in the face, or lunge at a person, or fail to growl before snapping. There are plenty of times that I could have been bit because the dog wasn't giving indications of being at all uncomfortable. I admit, I routinely pick dogs and cats and snakes and kinkajous up without muzzling them, without safety poles, and at risk to myself (kinkajou's move fast) and I have been bit half a dozen times (3 times by dogs, only one broke skin, once by a snake, once by an alligator, and once by a sloth.) As for handing a dog over backwards….only if the dog isn't nervous about that. Many dogs don't like being moved backwards towards an unknown person or object…and if a dog is nervous enough to bite a tech….it may just be nervous enough to bite the owner, which will likely result in a PLIT payment.

The owners can't have it both ways; they either knew their dog was uncomfortable and potentially going to cause harm and let the tech know so the tech could have given them a muzzle to put on or controlled the dog from a distance OR the dog was not showing any indications of being aggressive and the attack was truly unexpected. A lot of dogs have the warning signs punished out of them, which would be my guess in this case.

In an interview, the police emphasized that the tech made it clear she didn't want this dog euth'd, but that she wanted the owners to be careful with it and be clear that there is a risk with this dog, and she asked that the officers not pursue a vicious dog charge until 7 days after the incident, because the owners weren't taking it seriously, and she worried about what happened if a kid came up to the dog. They don't seem to have any concerns at all that their dog bit someone in the face. They have said that their dog has no responsibility in this and is a victim, the tech should apologize to them, and the clinic should be shut down. Even if I felt it was ALL the techs fault, I would still be incredibly concerned about my dog ever being around any stranger without a muzzle, especially if it offered no warning.

I use to tell folks when I hired them; the question isn't IF you get bit, it is when. The goal is to insure that bites are rare occurrences and that no major damage happens as a result. I am willing to bet the same level of bite on an arm wouldn't have been quite so upsetting. 15 years on the job with only one other bite is a pretty good track record for that tech…but I guess she isn't perfect and does all handling right 100% of the time.

I wonder, if this was a pit or GSD, would there even be a debate?
 
I wonder, if this was a pit or GSD, would there even be a debate?


Or rottweiler or dobie or bulldog. Shame.

But that's semi-OT, and I really have nothing else productive to say ;)
 
Ideally, the dog is put on the floor with a leash attached and will willingly walk with the employee without issues.

I should have clarified... I agree that not needing to carry the pet is best. Definitely not promoting carrying an animal if not necessary! I mostly just wanted to pass along what I see to be a helpful tip. Stay safe all!
 
Or rottweiler or dobie or bulldog. Shame.

But that's semi-OT, and I really have nothing else productive to say ;)

I don't think it is OT at all; viscious dog laws are often proposed as a fair alternative to breed bans. Using them selectively to punish owners of some breeds while others skate isn't acceptable. I read some doxy boards; even there the response is mixed.
 
Could you apply pressure in two directions with a rheometer?
 
In response to all of the different variations of "it's your fault if you are bitten" or "getting bitten is part of the job", a police officer knows that his job makes it more likely that he will be shot at some point, but if a criminal shoots a cop the answer is not "oh well, it's part of his job, don't punish the criminal" or "its the cop's fault, he must have done something wrong".
working with animals means you are more likely to receive an injury, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences when that happens.

I completely agree.

I've worked as a tech for three years, and I work with some amazing techs and doctors who have been in the field literally longer than I've been alive. We've had some discussions about this very topic and I wanted to share a few thoughts.

1. While it's likely that at some point in your career as a tech/dvm you'll get bit, if you expect it to happen, or think there's little you can do to prevent it, you're statistically more likely to get bit. Your "safety attitude" is important.
2. Handling skills take time to develop. Younger/less experienced techs are at a higher risk because they don't have as much experience with fractious animals. Older, more experienced techs and doctors should handle the more difficult pets.
3. I've known techs and doctors who have worked 30+ years and been bit once and only once. Scratches or bruises are one thing, nips are one thing, but serious bites should not be a regular occurrence, only the rare exception. My "job" is not to get bit.
4. Animals are under stress when they come into the hospital. This is a given. Every effort to learn animal body language must be made, so that you have a better chance of recognizing animals who might become fractious or aggressive. When in doubt, muzzle. When in extra doubt, the owner muzzles. When the owner can't muzzle, the animal needs to be sedated either safely by pinning between a door and a wall, or the owner needs to come back later, after the dog has calmed down and/or had oral sedation and the owner can put the muzzle on.
5. Any dog or cat is capable of inflicting serious injury. Any breed, any size, any age, any temperament. Never forget that.
6. I generally do not hold a client responsible for their pet's bad behavior at a vet's office. We can't explain to animals why we have to hold them dog, stick them with needles, or cut their nails, and even well socialized dogs get frightened and might snap to get away. I completely sympathize with them.

I DO hold owners responsible when they fail to mention their pet has a history of dangerous aggression. I saw a case where a 120lb "pittie" mix (looked like a mastiff to me) came in for a lump on it's chest. I was in the room with the doctor who asked twice if the dog had shown any aggression or fear at the vet, or if they had never needed a muzzle. The owner said no. The dog seemed mellow and was taking treats. The doctor went to step towards the dog, and without warning the dog lunged, teeth bared. The owner barely held the dog back. When the doctor asked, essentially, wtf, the owner was all "oh yeah he bites." We asked if the owner could muzzle the dog safely, or if the dog tries to bite when getting muzzled. The owner said no, he's fine to muzzle, so we gave the owner a muzzle. The owner tried to put it on, and the dog then tried to bite the owner (!). The owner then says, "Oh yeah, he does that when we muzzle him." ....(!!!!!)

This was a case where we had to pin the dog between a door and a wall and stick it with sedatives. It's also a case where, if our doctor had gotten bit, I would be personally fine with the doctor suing the client or holding the client accountable for owning a vicious dog, because the client essentially lied to us, and the risk for serious bodily harm was enormous. People with pets have a responsibility to own them...well, responsibly, and safely, and to warn veterinary professionals if their pet gets more than just "nervous" at the vet's office. None of us deserve to get bit.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Holy necrobump Batman.

Yeah. Seems like TerraVet made a lot of good points, though.

As for me, I personally have not chosen a side in this matter, but I think this thread offered a lot of food for thought.
 
Last edited:
Just to stimulate conversation...I don't know that a case of a vet suing a client who failed to disclose aggression would hold up very well. Without having any legal knowledge whatsoever, I'd just figure that unpredictable animals are an expected risk as a veterinarian, and that any animal should be approached with caution regardless of what the client says. Plus, how many vets are willing to spend the time/money on that kind of case? It's not like you'd be suing a multi-million dollar corporation.

Reminds me of the woman that sued McD's because she received severe burns after spilling the coffee she ordered. You know your coffee could be very hot, it spills, and you blame McD's because they didn't tell you that your coffee could be very hot.

Now they do, so it's all good.
 
I completely agree.

I've worked as a tech for three years, and I work with some amazing techs and doctors who have been in the field literally longer than I've been alive. We've had some discussions about this very topic and I wanted to share a few thoughts.

1. While it's likely that at some point in your career as a tech/dvm you'll get bit, if you expect it to happen, or think there's little you can do to prevent it, you're statistically more likely to get bit. Your "safety attitude" is important.
2. Handling skills take time to develop. Younger/less experienced techs are at a higher risk because they don't have as much experience with fractious animals. Older, more experienced techs and doctors should handle the more difficult pets.
3. I've known techs and doctors who have worked 30+ years and been bit once and only once. Scratches or bruises are one thing, nips are one thing, but serious bites should not be a regular occurrence, only the rare exception. My "job" is not to get bit.
4. Animals are under stress when they come into the hospital. This is a given. Every effort to learn animal body language must be made, so that you have a better chance of recognizing animals who might become fractious or aggressive. When in doubt, muzzle. When in extra doubt, the owner muzzles. When the owner can't muzzle, the animal needs to be sedated either safely by pinning between a door and a wall, or the owner needs to come back later, after the dog has calmed down and/or had oral sedation and the owner can put the muzzle on.
5. Any dog or cat is capable of inflicting serious injury. Any breed, any size, any age, any temperament. Never forget that.
6. I generally do not hold a client responsible for their pet's bad behavior at a vet's office. We can't explain to animals why we have to hold them dog, stick them with needles, or cut their nails, and even well socialized dogs get frightened and might snap to get away. I completely sympathize with them.

I DO hold owners responsible when they fail to mention their pet has a history of dangerous aggression. I saw a case where a 120lb "pittie" mix (looked like a mastiff to me) came in for a lump on it's chest. I was in the room with the doctor who asked twice if the dog had shown any aggression or fear at the vet, or if they had never needed a muzzle. The owner said no. The dog seemed mellow and was taking treats. The doctor went to step towards the dog, and without warning the dog lunged, teeth bared. The owner barely held the dog back. When the doctor asked, essentially, wtf, the owner was all "oh yeah he bites." We asked if the owner could muzzle the dog safely, or if the dog tries to bite when getting muzzled. The owner said no, he's fine to muzzle, so we gave the owner a muzzle. The owner tried to put it on, and the dog then tried to bite the owner (!). The owner then says, "Oh yeah, he does that when we muzzle him." ....(!!!!!)

This was a case where we had to pin the dog between a door and a wall and stick it with sedatives. It's also a case where, if our doctor had gotten bit, I would be personally fine with the doctor suing the client or holding the client accountable for owning a vicious dog, because the client essentially lied to us, and the risk for serious bodily harm was enormous. People with pets have a responsibility to own them...well, responsibly, and safely, and to warn veterinary professionals if their pet gets more than just "nervous" at the vet's office. None of us deserve to get bit.

1. I disagree. I think if you have the expectation that anything can happen instead of an "that isn't going to happen to me" you are more likely to be cautious. I don't really know anyone the believes there is "little they can do to prevent" being bit, but many people expect that at any moment an animal could bite them... so they are prepared for it.

2. Yes, this is true. Having stated that, maybe I am just odd, but every one of my bites happened after I had been a tech for over 5 years... I got 3 bites in one year at a point where I had been a tech for 7 years. Two dogs and one cat. I have had 4 bites in total over 10 years of veterinary work... I just happened to get 3 in a short period of time. One was through a muzzle, one was after another tech wasn't paying attention to what they were doing and the last one from the cat was a trouble cat we had dealt with before and he just happened to wiggle the right way that day. It happens.

3. Meh, see above. I wouldn't say any of them were really "major" bites. I mean the goal is to avoid being bit, but sometimes crap happens, even to the experienced.

4. If I have the owner muzzle and the animal bites them. I am liable for that owner's injury. You can decide what to do with that. Some vets will still have the owner muzzle the pet if they feel it will work out, others prefer not to take the chance.

5. Truth.

6. Eh, I have definitely strongly believed a client or more to be responsible for their pets' poor behavior. Heck, take any small dog that hasn't touched the floor because they are "afraid of it" and they are toted around everywhere in a hand bag with the owner doting over them every second. The animal is not potty trained even, it wears a diaper or the owner just lays out pee pads everywhere. These animals have not been socialized and tend to be biters at the vet. I do hold the owners responsible for that animal's behavior. It is very obvious when no training has gone into a dog. The other one I held responsible was the one where the dog had never been out of the house before... the dog was 5 years old and had never left the house.. even as a puppy. The dog was horribly behaved, as expected. It was the one that bit me through the muzzle. I don't blame that dog though... the owner, yeah, you have to socialize animals and expose them to things, she was very much responsible for that dog's behavior.


And your lawsuit isn't going to work.... that just isn't how it works...


But yes, as @WhtsThFrequency said... holy necrobump, batman.
 
Does anyone have any more examples of veterinary professions suing the owners of attacking animals? I'm curious if any of these suits were successful, and what the circumstances were.
 
Just to stimulate conversation...I don't know that a case of a vet suing a client who failed to disclose aggression would hold up very well. Without having any legal knowledge whatsoever, I'd just figure that unpredictable animals are an expected risk as a veterinarian, and that any animal should be approached with caution regardless of what the client says. Plus, how many vets are willing to spend the time/money on that kind of case? It's not like you'd be suing a multi-million dollar corporation.

Reminds me of the woman that sued McD's because she received severe burns after spilling the coffee she ordered. You know your coffee could be very hot, it spills, and you blame McD's because they didn't tell you that your coffee could be very hot.

Now they do, so it's all good.

FWIW, you should look into the McD's case that you just cited. A lot of people throw it around as an example of a frivolous lawsuit and if you actually look at the details, it really wasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
FWIW, you should look into the McD's case that you just cited. A lot of people throw it around as an example of a frivolous lawsuit and if you actually look at the details, it really wasn't.

Interesting. Can you dig up some good links?
 
Reminds me of the woman that sued McD's because she received severe burns after spilling the coffee she ordered. You know your coffee could be very hot, it spills, and you blame McD's because they didn't tell you that your coffee could be very hot.

As @Trilt stated, there is much more to this story....

Just a few things I recall off the top of my head:
1. McD's at the time had decided they wanted the hottest coffee available. The coffee was heated to an absolutely insane temperature. Actually, the main purpose of the lawsuit was just to get McD's to change this. There is no reason a little spilled coffee should cause the burns it caused this woman (we are talking severe, third and second degree burns).

2. The lid on the coffee cup that was handed to her did not fit the cup. So the lid was not secured and fell off, causing the coffee to spill all over the woman.


She wasn't even initially looking for money, just a change in McD's policies on their coffee. Also, the amount of money she did get, ended up being quite piddly after you really take everything into consideration.
 
FWIW, you should look into the McD's case that you just cited. A lot of people throw it around as an example of a frivolous lawsuit and if you actually look at the details, it really wasn't.
I have and I still think it was frivolous. I'm assuming we're referring to the same one (with the elderly woman). I don't see how you can sue when you held a cup between your legs, opened the lid, and spilled all over yourself. It is unfortunate that the woman was so injured by the drink, but I don't see how McD's was 80% at fault for her own actions. McD's didn't cause the injury, they just provided coffee . I wouldn't sue a gun shop if they didn't warn me not to clean a loaded gun just because I bought the gun there.
As @Trilt stated, there is much more to this story....

Just a few things I recall off the top of my head:
1. McD's at the time had decided they wanted the hottest coffee available. The coffee was heated to an absolutely insane temperature. Actually, the main purpose of the lawsuit was just to get McD's to change this. There is no reason a little spilled coffee should cause the burns it caused this woman (we are talking severe, third and second degree burns).

2. The lid on the coffee cup that was handed to her did not fit the cup. So the lid was not secured and fell off, causing the coffee to spill all over the woman.


She wasn't even initially looking for money, just a change in McD's policies on their coffee. Also, the amount of money she did get, ended up being quite piddly after you really take everything into consideration.
#2 is from a separate lawsuit against McD's altogether. That second one makes waaaay more sense.

According to handy Wikipedia, McD's still serves their coffee at the same temps (and my burnt tongue agrees), and that the temperature range McD's reaches is the "industry standard" because those exist for coffee o_O. Same page also implies that the burns were caused by the fact that once she spilled, she failed to remove her clothing. I get she was old though, so it's not like you or I. Those pants would not be hanging around for the amount of time it takes to cause a 3rd degree burn, lol. You'd think your grandson would help you remove sweatpants within 15 seconds, though. We'll probably never get the full story.
 
I have and I still think it was frivolous. I'm assuming we're referring to the same one (with the elderly woman). I don't see how you can sue when you held a cup between your legs, opened the lid, and spilled all over yourself. It is unfortunate that the woman was so injured by the drink, but I don't see how McD's was 80% at fault for her own actions. McD's didn't cause the injury, they just provided coffee . I wouldn't sue a gun shop if they didn't warn me not to clean a loaded gun just because I bought the gun there.

#2 is from a separate lawsuit against McD's altogether. That second one makes waaaay more sense.

According to handy Wikipedia, McD's still serves their coffee at the same temps (and my burnt tongue agrees), and that the temperature range McD's reaches is the "industry standard" because those exist for coffee o_O. Same page also implies that the burns were caused by the fact that once she spilled, she failed to remove her clothing. I get she was old though, so it's not like you or I. Those pants would not be hanging around for the amount of time it takes to cause a 3rd degree burn, lol. You'd think your grandson would help you remove sweatpants within 15 seconds, though. We'll probably never get the full story.

No, you aren't getting it.

Back then the coffee was between 180 and 190 degrees. It was a McDs standard for a number of years. They had over 700 reports of people receiving third degree burns from this coffee. Burn experts commented that it would take all of 2 seconds for liquid of that temperature to cause 3rd degree burns. I don't care who you are or how young you are, you aren't getting clothing off in 2 seconds while in a car or really while anywhere. The 700+ cases included people of all ages, including children.

McD's acknowledged the danger with the coffee that hot but refused to change it or warn customers about it.

This wasn't some "oh geeze, I spilled hot liquid in me, going to sue someone". This was a serious issue that needed to be addressed and she got attention to the issue.

There is zero reason to have coffee at 190 degrees. Conversely at 155 degrees, which is what they have it down around now (according to some websites), the coffee presents nearly zero risk of third degree or even second degree burns.

So, not even close to frivolous. And she didn't ask for what she got.

Have you seen the pictures of what that coffee did to her? Imagine the 700+ others who also had similar burns. It was absurd for McD's to not address this without lawsuit if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
No, you aren't getting it.

Back then the coffee was between 180 and 190 degrees. It was a McDs standard for a number of years. They had over 700 reports of people receiving third degree burns from this coffee. Burn experts commented that it would take all of 2 seconds for liquid of that temperature to cause 3rd degree burns. I don't care who you are or how young you are, you aren't getting clothing off in 2 seconds while in a car or really while anywhere. The 700+ cases included people of all ages, including children.

McD's acknowledged the danger with the coffee that hot but refused to change it or warn customers about it.

This wasn't some "oh geeze, I spilled hot liquid in me, going to sue someone". This was a serious issue that needed to be addressed and she got attention to the issue.

There is zero reason to have coffee at 190 degrees. Conversely at 155 degrees, which is what they have it down around now, the coffee presents nearly zero risk of third degree or even second degree burns.

So, not even close to frivolous. And she didn't ask for what she got.

Have you seen the pictures of what that coffee did to her? Imagine the 700+ others who also had similar burns. It was absurd for McD's to not address this without lawsuit if you ask me.
To be clear, yes there were 700 reports of burns, but not all of them were to the extent this woman had since she spilled an entire cup and her pants held it to her skin for a long period of time. Also, I'm willing to bet on the fact that most coffee is held around 180F. We held it around that in the dining hall I worked in. Coffee places get inundated with burn lawsuits every year, I'm sure. This one stuck only because the woman's burns were so bad. Her own team argued that it took 15 seconds to get those burns, though. Again, the coffee is still served at those exact temps today.

Also, just for funsies because I had to verify that coffee standards exist: "Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 to 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction."
 
Just to stimulate conversation...I don't know that a case of a vet suing a client who failed to disclose aggression would hold up very well.


I don't know about that. Back after my aunt's first husband died, she started working really long shifts cause she couldn't stand to be alone. So she ended up bringing her rose breasted cockatoo to the store since the bird (Rosie) wasn't getting any stimulation at home. We put a sign on her cage saying, "Do not put fingers in cage. I may bite." Well, of course some prissy soccer mom stuck her fingers in the cage and Rosie bit her (lady was very aggressive in her attempt to pet Rosie and it probably scared the crap out of the poor bird). Soccer mom tried to sue for her hospital visit and such. Judge basically said no simply because we had a sign saying Rosie may bite. He did say there is an assumed risk of being bit when in a pet store, but not one enough to where a hospital visit would be required. If we hadn't had the sign, we would have lost, even though it's common sense to not stick your finger in the cage of a medium sized bird.

So, depending on where you were, a lawsuit like that actually might have some merit. Maybe not worth it monetarily, but possible to win. I could see it winning in Colorado, honestly.
 
To be clear, yes there were 700 reports of burns, but not all of them were to the extent this woman had since she spilled an entire cup and her pants held it to her skin for a long period of time. Also, I'm willing to bet on the fact that most coffee is held around 180F. We held it around that in the dining hall I worked in. Coffee places get inundated with burn lawsuits every year, I'm sure. This one stuck only because the woman's burns were so bad. Her own team argued that it took 15 seconds to get those burns, though. Again, the coffee is still served at those exact temps today.

Also, just for funsies because I had to verify that coffee standards exist: "Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 to 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction."

The coffee you make in your home is considerably less hot.

Many of the 700 reports were just as bad, including people who were incapacitated from the burns. Some were minor too.

The exact reports from experts in that trail stated with that temperature of coffee it would take two seconds for the burns to be obtained. Not fifteen. Two.

Your home brewer is typically much cooler than any coffee shop. Again, this is from back in the 90's.... so you have to look at info from then. Home brewers then were 145-155 degrees. So if you spilled coffee on yourself, you'd expect maybe a mild burn but definitely not third degree burns needing skin grafts and weeks of hospitalization. Anyone would think that for any coffee spilled on them.

And a big point of the case then was that most places didn't serve coffee at that temperature, most places were much lower back when this case happened.

There is a certain point where yes liability falls on a company. McD's had spent years paying off people for their severe burns from their coffee without going to trail. Why they decided to take this one case to trail is beyond me. If you're shelling out what I recall was at around $500,000 to people for burns sustained by your coffee. Burns severe enough to maim people and leave them hospitalized, there is something wrong. It shouldn't take a lawsuit to change your policies.

And if you ask most lawyers, they'd tell you McD's was beyond stupid to take the case to trail. My aunt was going over it with me because they spent time learning it in law school. When you really parse everything out, McD's actually got off easy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Here's a link explaining certain things better than I can:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

At least that one McDonald's lowered their coffee temperature. I'd be a bit surprised if they haven't lowered it everywhere. Then, again, I also wouldn't be. One would hope they did.

I also looked up holding coffee temp of Starbucks... it is 145-165.
 
Ninja'd. How many of these have turned up in the last few months? Several

Hey guys help me out. I'm a little confused on what your policy is with thread creation. I used to think that if something had been discussed before, then one should reply to that thread, rather than starting their own. But the impression I'm getting now is that there is a time limit on this. If a thread is over x years old, you prefer people create a new thread. Am I right?

......or do you really not care, you just marvel when you see a thread you haven't seen in years :p
 
Also, just for funsies because I had to verify that coffee standards exist: "Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 to 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction."
My hubby bought me an espresso machine for Christmas last year so I spent a whole lot of time fiddling with it and reading up on it. Apparently my machine can only put out a cup around 185 degrees max, which really upset some people. They cite the temperatures above and claim that espresso under 185 is undrinkable. I found many, many pages that say the proper serving temperature for coffee is 135-175. 135 is on the warm side and 175 is too freaking hot to me, but many of these espresso nuts claim that is why they make espresso at home, to get a truly hot cup. There are hundreds of Web pages devoted to "the right serving temperature of coffee" and they get very passionate about this. South Americans in particular seem to think coffee ought to burn at 185 plus. I'm happy around 160 and under, but I also tend to chug down my coffee.
 
I don't know about that. Back after my aunt's first husband died, she started working really long shifts cause she couldn't stand to be alone. So she ended up bringing her rose breasted cockatoo to the store since the bird (Rosie) wasn't getting any stimulation at home. We put a sign on her cage saying, "Do not put fingers in cage. I may bite." Well, of course some prissy soccer mom stuck her fingers in the cage and Rosie bit her (lady was very aggressive in her attempt to pet Rosie and it probably scared the crap out of the poor bird). Soccer mom tried to sue for her hospital visit and such. Judge basically said no simply because we had a sign saying Rosie may bite. He did say there is an assumed risk of being bit when in a pet store, but not one enough to where a hospital visit would be required. If we hadn't had the sign, we would have lost, even though it's common sense to not stick your finger in the cage of a medium sized bird.

So, depending on where you were, a lawsuit like that actually might have some merit. Maybe not worth it monetarily, but possible to win. I could see it winning in Colorado, honestly.
1. Totally read that as 'Roast beasted'

2. That's entirely different than a veterinarian suing their client over a bite, though. In a pet store, animals are contained and contact isn't always going to happen. She could have argued that a biting bird doesn't belong within the reach of a customer. As a vet, contact always happens and the animals are very stressed, yada yada yada. And is it common sense? You'd be surprised what people really and truly don't know, and common sense wouldn't stand in the event of the victim being a child. It should be common sense, but it's not. A few months ago, someone on my FB feed was sharing a post (the OP was a mom whose kid got bit on the hand) about how a pasture of horses nearby was "out of hand." They were biting each person that went up to the fence and tried to pet them, because no one thought that would be a bad idea. People were getting all worked up, calling for euthanasia or relocation. I don't know what came of it, but I'm sure the owner considered putting up 'Do not pet' signs. :smack:
 
Hey guys help me out. I'm a little confused on what your policy is with thread creation. I used to think that if something had been discussed before, then one should reply to that thread, rather than starting their own. But the impression I'm getting now is that there is a time limit on this. If a thread is over x years old, you prefer people create a new thread. Am I right?

......or do you really not care, you just marvel when you see a thread you haven't seen in years :p
The second response lol. It's strange sometimes to see threads being brought back to life from 2010.
 
Back to your regularly scheduled program.........

Does anyone have any more examples of veterinary professions suing the owners of attacking animals? I'm curious if any of these suits were successful, and what the circumstances were.

There have been unsuccessful attempts, usually the courts have said something along the lines of 1) the idea of the dog being in a clinic, held by strangers, and poked and needled essentially was "provocation" for the bite, 2) that veterinarians were the professionals in the situation and should use their professional opinion over any claim from the owners, or 3) it's an occupational hazard. These precedents are all over 30 years old, but I doubt that today any judge would rule otherwise. (Examples, see Wendland v. Akers, 356 So. 2d 368 (Fla. App. 1978), Nelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 709, or Willenberg v. Superior Court (Weule) (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 185 , 229 Cal.Rptr. 625).
 
Hey guys help me out. I'm a little confused on what your policy is with thread creation. I used to think that if something had been discussed before, then one should reply to that thread, rather than starting their own. But the impression I'm getting now is that there is a time limit on this. If a thread is over x years old, you prefer people create a new thread. Am I right?

......or do you really not care, you just marvel when you see a thread you haven't seen in years :p

It's annoying when someone asks a general question about vet school applications, admissions process, vet school curriculum,job outlook, what is an internship/residency, loans, etc... that is easily searchable and has been rehashed many times. "Don't start a new thread" usually means just do a freaking search because the answers are out there, or there are multiple active conversations on the topic so add in your thoughts there. It doesn't mean resurrect a 5 year old thread about one current event article or whatever and start arguing with people who are long gone.

But mostly, it's amusing when people do it, and it brings me much nostalgia.
 
It's annoying when someone asks a general question about vet school applications, admissions process, vet school curriculum,job outlook, what is an internship/residency, loans, etc... that is easily searchable and has been rehashed many times. "Don't start a new thread" usually means just do a freaking search because the answers are out there, or there are multiple active conversations on the topic so add in your thoughts there. It doesn't mean resurrect a 5 year old thread about one current event article or whatever and start arguing with people who are long gone.

But mostly, it's amusing when people do it, and it brings me much nostalgia.

Maybe we need a sticky explaining this? Then whenever somebody makes that booboo, somebody could kindly reply with the link? :D

Unless you guys don't feel it's enough of a problem to even warrant that xD

But I'm trying to be helpful here :p
 
1. Totally read that as 'Roast beasted'

2. That's entirely different than a veterinarian suing their client over a bite, though. In a pet store, animals are contained and contact isn't always going to happen. She could have argued that a biting bird doesn't belong within the reach of a customer. As a vet, contact always happens and the animals are very stressed, yada yada yada. And is it common sense? You'd be surprised what people really and truly don't know, and common sense wouldn't stand in the event of the victim being a child. It should be common sense, but it's not. A few months ago, someone on my FB feed was sharing a post (the OP was a mom whose kid got bit on the hand) about how a pasture of horses nearby was "out of hand." They were biting each person that went up to the fence and tried to pet them, because no one thought that would be a bad idea. People were getting all worked up, calling for euthanasia or relocation. I don't know what came of it, but I'm sure the owner considered putting up 'Do not pet' signs. :smack:

That's the thing, though. We do have open "petters" for some of the animals specifically so that people can touch them (combat the stigma that pet store animals aren't socialized). A ton of our animals are accessible during certain times of the day. We didn't do this with Rosie, but if we had a cockatoo or parrot, we would have certain times of the day where we would bring them out of their room and carry them around with us. Same thing with the reptiles, cats, and arachnids. The only animals that weren't accessible in a petter were reptiles, mice, rats, song birds, fish (duh), and cats (who had their own room). And we had signs everywhere saying, "Be careful. Puppies nip!" and such things.

The judge said that if we hadn't disclosed Rosie could bite while knowing she could, the soccer mom could have won her case. I think that's pretty similar to an owner not disclosing aggression in their pet to their veterinarian. Add others have stated, yes, we should expect to get bit at some point. But that doesn't excuse negligence on the owner's part.

And yes, I do think it's common sense to not stick your finger in an animal's closed locked cage. Just because people nowadays don't have any sense of personal responsibility doesn't change that fact. At the age of soccer mom status, if you don't know not to do that (and read the big sign on the cage), you're an idiot. If you as a parent haven't taught kids about strange animals and sticking your hand in a strange cage, you failed in one aspect of parenting.
 
Sooooooo I need some clarification on the two sides of the argument here, because to me they blend together with almost imperceptible differances.

Can somebody on side 1 summarize their position?

And can somebody on side 2 contrast their position with that one.

Starry wants to know what the heck is going on xD lol!
 
McD's didn't cause the injury, they just provided coffee . I wouldn't sue a gun shop if they didn't warn me not to clean a loaded gun just because I bought the gun there.

Guns are manufactured to inflict damage. There is a reasonable assumption that they are dangerous. Coffee is manufactured to drink. There is a reasonable assumption that you can drink it or even spill it on yourself without inflicting severe damage.

I don't mean to be snarky I just don't think that comparison holds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Maybe we need a sticky explaining this? Then whenever somebody makes that booboo, somebody could kindly reply with the link? :D

Unless you guys don't feel it's enough of a problem to even warrant that xD

But I'm trying to be helpful here :p
There is a sticky about it. The welcome to the prevet forum sticky. No one reads stickies. People who are dumb/lazy enough to ask "tell me step by step how to become a veterinarian" before searching are for sure not going to first do due diligence by reading a stick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
There is a sticky about it. The welcome to the prevet forum sticky. No one reads stickies. People who are dumb/lazy enough to ask "tell me step by step how to become a veterinarian" before searching are for sure not going to first do due diligence by reading a stick.

Too bad we can't do what I did on a forum I had coded myself. I made it so if you'd never posted before, and you tried to post, you had to read the rules (I think there were about 10) and pass a 5 question quiz before you could post. Eliminated 99% of the n00b mistakes. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Too bad we can't do what I did on a forum I had coded myself. I made it so if you'd never posted before, and you tried to post, you had to read the rules (I think there were about 10) and pass a 5 question quiz before you could post. Eliminated 99% of the n00b mistakes. :D
@Lee ? :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Too bad we can't do what I did on a forum I had coded myself. I made it so if you'd never posted before, and you tried to post, you had to read the rules (I think there were about 10) and pass a 5 question quiz before you could post. Eliminated 99% of the n00b mistakes. :D
That makes almost too much sense :p
 
I think the most disturbing part about this is that people really think its part of the job to be bitten like that (not necessarily people on SDN, but people on the dogster site). It's one thing to be nipped at or scratched, and you do take the risk of being bitten, but in my experience, there are some dogs you really can't approach safely, and those dogs should be sedated by the owners before they come in. As for not being muzzled, if what the owners said was true, and he'd never bitten before, I can see a vet tech not muzzling that dog. Or the owners might not have wanted a muzzle because he's their "precious angel" or whatever. It seemed like he was being handed over to be taken to the back and the vet tech was bitten, they weren't doing dental procedures on him awake. And regardless of him being a nervous dog, bad calls in judgment happen, but I can't really blame the vet tech for suing as her lips were bitten off.

I know this isn't going to be a popular point of view. This kind of incident is why I really dislike pampered, small dogs. Most of them feel comfortable biting at people because they've never been told no.

THIS. Owners tend to think their dog won't bite or if they do, it won't hurt, because they're small. Being bitten is absolutely a risk but it shouldn't just be accepted...
 
Top