Quote:
Originally Posted by imdll  Is it possible that a restraint wasn't used? |
This is the co-key issue regarding Negligence. The presumption is, that a proper restraint (there may be more than one acceptable type) was not used. In Posts #35/37 of this thread, whimzi has stated that through a Necropsy performed by her Veterinarian, that the cause of death was, "a Broken Neck". Given what I know of YT physiology, that would have taken a fall of several feet. I would have further required, that the mechanism of the Injury be identified clearly. This is where an issue of Malicious Intent could be ruled in/out. One never knows, I've seen some Groomers, who's patients was taxed to the limit, by a "less than" cooperative Dog. That being an exacerbation not an excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmyyorkie I hope you get some justice and pray that the hole in your heart soon heals! |
Soon...not usually. I've been accused as being as cold hearted as they come, and I'm still grieving over a loss of one of my Dogs, which happened fifteen years ago. THAT's why I would insist that the precedent be argued.
That absolutely callous and heartless decision, was initially made about animals which were for slaughter. To protect the industry from someone calming erroneous personal grief over an animal which was never intended or included in the personal lives of it's owner(s). We are NOT talking about Chickens or Cattle, or even (excuse me for saying) Dogs which are Commercially Bred and not homed.
However, on this issue, once a Dog IS homed, it becomes an integral part of one or more people's lives, and that's why I would argue I
ens Obviam Sceptrum (the exception to the rule) and cause compensation for Pain and Suffering SOME HOW, SOME WAY ! ! ! It's bad enough, when we lose our Love-ones from natural causes, BUT, to have them wenched from our arms and hearts because of some careless act of oversight or possibly even anger, is intolerable, and should be dealt with, by the most severe punitive actions.