I'm not entirely sure how US law works, but I know in Canada, when the Supreme Court (or any level) makes ground breaking decisions like this they are VERY careful in the wording of things, and make sure that definitions do not mess things up.
So I totally see the point of being cautious. I think that if a judge were to clearly define that intentionally breeding an animal to be defective is a cause for a suit for damages and medical bills, it could eliviate the worry of groomers or vets being more liable. I think they would likely have to attack this problem with the breeders, which yes would create a lot of problems for good breeders, cause then the judge would have to evaluate what a "reasonable breeder" would be set as.
Ok sooo totally realized this post is full of legal garble, sorry... lol potential lawyer in the making. :P If only the law school apps considered this.
__________________ Kendra Harley, you were the light in my life, rest peacefully my love! |