[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by jp4m2

Sometimes what seems logical to us isn't. I remember reading about a court decision that was made in the 1990's. it essentially relieved vaccine manufacturers in every state as defendants in tort cases, unless the vaccine was improperly made. So essentially the liability will fall to the vet administering the vaccine. If a pet suffers a serious adverse reaction or worse, the pet dies. The vet is the one that can be held liable for many thigs such as: professional negligence, vet malpractice, administering medical product without informed consent from the pet owner, and if the vet claimed the vaccine was safe and effective, he could be looking at a breech of warranty charge.

It would be as if the vet is admitting to malpractice, so there isn't much incentive to report this sort of thing. Also,the breech of warranty would more likely not be covered by malpractice insurance.

Also, many vets have no idea what a vaccine reaction is or what it looks like. They also tend to believe reactions are rare and they only happen within minutes of the vaccine being administered. And as the other poster pointed out a lot of times the EC is who would treat this.

more likely treat this.

Thanks...another angle to the picture! .....Is it safe to say "logic has NO place in the legal system"?