Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) Liability waivers are never carte blanche absolvements of responsibility for everything.
2) The language of each individual waiver delineates what is covered and what is not. And regardless of how some like to gnash their teeth over legal disagreements, it is impossible to create a document which clearly accounts for all eventualities.
3) Some actions have never been waivable, period.
4) A 10-year-old cannot waive his rights. And adults, even guardians, can only waive so many of them on his behalf.
Now, I don't know the particulars of this case in detail (a trait I share with everyone else commenting on this thread). I don't know if Petco is at legal fault or not. I don't know if the family has a reasonable, legal case.
But at least I know that I don't know such things, and am not immediately rushing to complain about the supposed horror of a lawsuit against a poor oppressed business.
Correct. Waivers do not absolve companies of responsibility when their actions are clearly negligent. Consider gyms and their liability waivers. They say "we're not responsible if you get injured or die when you use the equipment." That's not always true. If a gym fails to maintain a treadmill properly and the belt slips because it's not attached tightly enough while a member is running on it, causing the person to fall, hit their head on the steel handrail, and die of a head injury, the gym is responsible, waiver or not.
I wonder if the fact that the grandmother purchased the rat and not the parents makes any difference as to the legality of the waiver. The parents presumably have guardianship of the child, thus they technically did not consent to the purchase of the animal. It probably doesn't, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Yes, they should have taken the rat to the vet, but that's another issue.
It's terrible and I understand their pain and suffering, but the grandmother did sign the agreement that released Petco from any and all liability.
The reason can go forward is ordinarily the law provides that there is a public policy prohibiting people from signing a contract that waives liability in advance of potential wrongdoing. The courts will generally treat such an agreement as invalid.
Warning someone of a hazard like this disease though can create a defense known as "assumption of risk". This is a defense the jury can evaluate and determine during its deliberations.
I make no particular comment on the merits (or lack thereof) in this case. I will say if the jury is composed of people who think like the posters on this thread do, the family is unlikely to do very well in court.
The grandmother signing the waiver presents an interesting legal point. If the grandmother lives in a home with homeowners insurance, a a lawsuit against her for signing the waiver might be a practical option. Home owner's insurance provides general liability coverage that obligates an insurance company to pay for any harm caused by "covered persons" up to the limits of liability which may be $100K, $300K, or even a $1 million.
I have brought claims against extended family members in situations where they created a situation that resulted in harm to a minor child. They are touchy situations, but when you explain to the family that liability insurance exists and that's something they have been paying premiums for for years, often they are willing to allow pursuit of the claim.
One option in a case like this is to name all the parties whom you think are at all fault and let a jury decide who is and what the amount of the damages suffered are.
Last edited by markg91359; 04-09-2017 at 10:36 AM..
I make no particular comment on the merits (or lack thereof) in this case. I will say if the jury is composed of people who think like the posters on this thread do, the family is unlikely to do very well in court.
.
Nah. In real life, even the most cranky CD posters are likely to see the grieving parents v. the faceless mega corp and figure they will try to ease the family's pain. That's why so many companies just settle out of court
If I was Petco I would take this lawsuit to the next level. Was the rat even the one they sold, sure you got a receipt but maybe you switched the rats? Maybe the rat contracted the disease at the family's home or maybe the plaintiff's lawyer planted the ill rat in hopes of a huge lawsuit!
Settle the case? Sure, you can have another rat and a year's supply of rat food with an extra case for your lawyer!
Nah. In real life, even the most cranky CD posters are likely to see the grieving parents v. the faceless mega corp and figure they will try to ease the family's pain. That's why so many companies just settle out of court
You hear t.v. broadcasts and read newspaper articles. These are generally newsworthy because of a high dollar verdict. I am privy to case reports that cover a number of states. More of these cases are lost in court than you realize. I understand the public perception is that juries act out of pure sympathy in every case and are willing to give away fortunes to any fool and his lawyer who asks them to do so. Its my observation after thirty plus years of practicing in the courts that this isn't true. I can make room for the idea that some areas of the country have juries that are more willing to award money than in other areas. They tell me that counties in south Texas near the Mexican border are bad places to be sued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Guy997S
If I was Petco I would take this lawsuit to the next level. Was the rat even the one they sold, sure you got a receipt but maybe you switched the rats? Maybe the rat contracted the disease at the family's home or maybe the plaintiff's lawyer planted the ill rat in hopes of a huge lawsuit!
Settle the case? Sure, you can have another rat and a year's supply of rat food with an extra case for your lawyer!
If any of this could be proven than these would be valid defenses to the lawsuit. However, once testimony was presented that it was the same rat, the burden would fall on Petco to prove otherwise. I mean present actual proof--not just conspiracy theories.
If you think the case could be won just because someone stood up in court and made these allegations without presenting any evidence, you'd be wrong. Unlike during the last election, people are actually required to present proof of the claims they make in a court of law. If they don't, the judge would instruct the jury to totally disregard such statements.
And here is what the case is based on
The Pankey’s attorneys relate that PetCo knew of the dangers, but failed here.*They say that:
The animals were not properly vaccinated, but instead got sloppy “batch immunizations” that did not eradicate the bacteria; (
Batch immunizations can cause errors, which increases the risk of selling a sick rat to customers; and
PetCo required its employees to receive vaccinations for rat bite fever, indicating that the store did not have confidence in the rats’ inoculation procedures.
A family pet yes, like a dog but ten year olds are still a little young.
Why did the rat bite? Did the ten year old play too rough with it?
Where is the responsibility from the parents AND the grandmother?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.