Yorkie death at groomer

[SWHouston]

Both of your precedents are appreciated, but...

It wold not be beyond an energetic Council, to offer consideration of Iens Obviam Sceptrum, in this case, assuming that culpability by the responsible agent (Groomer) had been established..

Hay, wouldn't hurt to ask, would it !

[Beamers Mom]

Wouldn't hurt to ask but if groomer is found culpable (which I am sure they would be) it may be difficult for an energetic counsel to prove malicious intent, which is what you are suggesting. No groomer intends to cause a dog's death.

[SWHouston]

HA, BMom you do drive a hard bargain !

That culpability still remains, regardless of intent, and it is very important for whimzi to make sure, that was/is done.

There MUST be a legal complaint registered with whatever local Agency is in jurisdiction. That being the local Animal Control, or whoever is able to cause punitive legal action against the Groomer, establishing an occurrence of Disobedience. (regardless of intent).

Please excuse me for reducing this to just "something", but anything from a Letter of Reprimand, to a heavy Fine is a MUST ! And, this action should be separate from subsequent Legal recourse.

One could leave the issue of "maliciousness" to a Closing Statement.

[Beamers Mom]

The only way I can think of that this happened is that the groomer had one of those restraining groomer leash things (forget their name) and the little one went to jump off the table when the groomer's back was turned.

I would definitely sue.

[Farleys]

Originally Posted by Beamers Mom

The only way I can think of that this happened is that the groomer had one of those restraining groomer leash things (forget their name) and the little one went to jump off the table when the groomer's back was turned.

I would definitely sue.

THats what i am thinking happened too! IT should never happen!! I am a groomer, and i have never ever left a dog unattended on a table!! I could never ever live with myself if i hurt someone elses dog!!!!!

[SWHouston]

The Restraints I have seen, were simple "Nylon Choker" type Collars, which were hooked on a Hook, that was adjusted to the Dog's height, when sitting or standing. This leaves one hand available to Groom, while the other hand supports the buttocks, when standing on all four is required.

When adjusted properly, the length/height of this "system" prevents a Dog from moving anywhere near the edge of the Table, and actually keeps it from laying down as well. Possibly a little restrictive/uncomfortable for the Dog, but, it's quite temporary and acceptable to me, under those circumstances, except for the Choker Collar.

Apparently, this system was not used, and a Leash of sufficient length was, where the Dog could access the side of the Table, and jump.

This presents an issue of negligence from the lack of attendance, and possibly the choice of Equipment selected by the Groomer, could be related to intent as well (I certainly would).

Gives us all pause, and concern where it wold be a very good idea to personally inspect any facility groom/board/whatever, prior to leaving one of our animals in their care, custody and control.

[imdll]

Is it possible that a restraint wasn't used? I don't know the size of this dog but is it possible that even if it jumped off the grooming table and had a restraint on it's neck that it wouldn't be heavy enough or been able to create enough force to break it's neck and would have strangled instead? Could the dog have jumped off the table unrestrained and broken it's neck that way? It seems strange to me that a restraint used to keep a dog on a grooming table and to prevent a dog from laying down would ever be long enough to allow for the kind of force required to break a small dog's neck.

I'm just kind of talking out loud and certainly don't have a great deal of practical experience with grooming restraints. I'm just wondering if there is some other way that this could have happened?

It's so disturbing to be thinking about this sort of thing. I'm not sure I will ever be able to leave my little dog with a groomer again. I have been grooming her myself and certainly not terrific at it but I think if I'm not able to stay with her at a groomers she will just have to be groomed at home. This whole thing just makes me ill and my heart breaks that such a tragedy happened.

[heartmyyorkie]

This is just so very sad and completely angers everyone who loves a yorkie or any pup for that matter. I hope you get some justice and pray that the hole in your heart soon heals!

Stories like these just fuel the fire for my refusal to bring Pita to a groomer(I know these instances are rare but my protective instincts take over), mommy will just keep practicing at triming that crazy hair herself!

[SWHouston]

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.

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 Iens 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.