Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

who should pay?

The current California heat wave was one cause of my Son's 5 year old Labrador's death.

He & his wife were on vacation and had her parents watch the dog for the 3 days they were gone, their son

(23 years) took the dog to the park and ran her for about 10 mins.(it was ovr 95+) the dog had to be taken to the emergency vet that evening and died of a heat stroke 3 days later, her parents then gave the young couple the vet bill of $5,000, who should be responsible for this bill?


Asked on 7/25/06, 5:50 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

Philip Iadevaia Law Offices of Philip A. Iadevaia

Re: who should pay?

$5,000.00 is outrageous. What did the vet do? The owner of the dog should be responsible for the bill, but its amount is too much. Good luck.

Read more
Answered on 7/31/06, 7:04 pm
Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

Re: who should pay?

I'm sorry to hear about your son's loss, though I can't say I agree with Mr. Iadevaia that the bill was outrageous since I don't know what the vet did. $5,000 might be a perfectly fair price for the type of services he performed, especially if she was hospitalized for three days. (Your question does not say whether she stayed in the ER for that time or was sent home.)

As the dog's owners, your son and his wife presumptively responsible for paying for the reasonable value of the vet's services. They would clearly be responsible if the dog had become ill while in their care; despite appearances, the fact that the dog was being cared for by others may have been unrelated to her death.

The brother-in-law might be on the hook if he should have realized that the dog was in danger but made her exercise anyway, but I don't think a typical healthy 5-year-old Lab would have serious problems with just 10 minutes of exercise even in that kind of heat, or that a non-expert should have anticipated such problems. Making the dog exercise in that heat was dumb but not necessarily so dumb that this outcome was foreseeable.

It is also possible that the dog's demise was not caused by the exercise at all, especially since some time seems to have passed before she needed treatment and since three more days passed before she died. The sustained heatwave might have overwhelmed her system even if she hadn't gone running.

The fact that the parents were caring for the dog at the time is not enough by itself to make them responsible for the independent actions of their adult son. They should only be held responsible if something they did caused the dog's illness or death or, alternatively, if: (a) the exercise caused the dog's illness and death; AND (b) they should have known this might happen if the dog exercised in those conditions AND (c); they either told the brother to exercise the dog or should have known that he was going to do this on his own.

Read more
Answered on 7/31/06, 8:35 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in California