Pet_Net had been off to a great start, but as of late, they have been under some scrutiny. Complications with two of Pet_Net’s dog sitters have placed the company in uncomfortable situations. The first event occurred while a Pet_Net dog sitter was taking a clients dog for a walk in a nearby park. At the moment, with nobody in sight, the sitter let the dog off of the leash. Moments later, a mother and child entered the park. The dog overexcitedly greeted the small child, knocking him over, and breaking his arm. The family is now pressing charges of negligence against Pet_Net and the sitter. The next event occurred while a Pet_Net sitter was looking after a dog at the client’s residence and discovered that the dog looked ill. The sitter took the dog to the vet, but incurred over $2,000 for the emergency service, which the owner is claiming they will not pay. It is …show more content…
Going forward, this will allow for you company to better identify the liability risk. If they are considered employees, than Pet_Net will have a much greater liability exposure than if they are considered independent contractors. Also, I would suggest, if the video hasn’t already clearly mentioned, your policy on taking dogs off the leash in public. My other suggestion for preventing actions like this is to clearly outline in the agreement with the customers your policy for emergency situations. The customer needs to clearly understand that if one of Pet_Net’s agents feels as if the dog is in need of greater care, they are going to take the best interest of the dog and seek help. If the customer wishes against that, than it should explicated agreed upon to prevent any possible liability. If you decide to take my suggestions, I believe that Pet_Net will no longer experience these troubles, and be back on track of becoming a successful
4. Facts: It was the time of August in 1986, when William Geringer with his family was on vacation at the Wildhorn Ranch Resort located in Teller County, Colorado. Due to some defective Paddleboating boat two of the family members (William Geringer and his minor son Jared Geringer) were drowned. Mr. Watters, a defendant, was formerly the owner of the resort, but he stated that he handed over the possession to Wildhorn Ranch Inc. “The other defendant, Les Bretzke, was a contractor with an autonomous company that endow with repair services and repair construction to the resort.” During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of
Facts: Frigaliment Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. had breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered. In the first of the two contracts Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. ( smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract vice the first agreement) Both contracts were signed by the parties on May 2nd, 1957. BNS shortly after made 2 shipments to meet the requirements of the first contract , of these two shipments the first was not delivered in full, but the shortage was made up with the later shipment. After receiving the shipment, Frigaliment came to the conclusion that the larger chickens delivered were not young chickens suitable for the purpose of frying or broiling. The older chickens commonly known as fowl were only suitable for stewing purposes. Frigaliment then requested to B.N.S. to stop the second contract shipment of chickens and sued BNS, claiming that under the contract B.N.S. was to only ship young chickens. BNS in turn responded that the obligation was simply to ship chickens that met the description in the contract; this was not exclusive to young chickens per the contract.
A competitive product in the industry is PetChatz, a device which contains a screen and can be installed on the wall. The pet owner can talk and see their dog through the screen, and release treats or a comforting sense through the device by clicking on an icon.
When thinking about a business one may ponder the several aspects of how a business functions. One of the most important aspects to a company are their ethical obligations. Many businesses have these obligations but not all recognize them, which can create an issue between the consumers and the suppliers. Petco is an animal supplies company that deals in the sales of all animal related products (food, leashes, and so much more). It is reasonable to question what ethical obligations Petco has and if they are acting on these responsibilities. One must outline the different actions that Petco has as an animal supplies company to keep the animals in their possession healthy and well-cared for. For many businesses dealing with
Subaru has always tried to bill themselves as pet friendly. Many of their commercials feature dogs, and the back of their wagons and SUVs are supposedly ideal for ferrying forth furry friends. Recently, they took a step beyond ads, and took the initiative to go beyond what any other automaker has done for pets. Subaru and the Center for Pet Safety have gone out and actually tested pet carriers and crates in crash scenarios.
A dog is often times referred to as “Man’s Best Friend.” Many people have dogs and enjoy spending time with them. Dogs may be friendly and tame but may also be ferocious and dangerous. Because of these contrasting potential behaviors, along with others, I believe that workplaces should not allow employees to bring their dogs to work.
The plaintiff in this action, Mr. Bell, is requesting from the Commission, to award compensation for his injury under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Mr. Bell, will be referred to as Bell, filed a workers’ compensation claim against defendant, Safe Place Children’s Home, which will be referred to as the Safe Place. Bell subsequently submitted a claim to the Safe Place human resources department and was denied. Bell’s injury is compensable because Safe Place mandated Bell’s physical presence and participation in a football game at an annual picnic which benefited Safe Place by socializing, boosting morale, and team building. An injury arises out of employment when the employee is expressly mandated at the recreational and social event and the
Is Critter Sitters liable for June’s injuries? Be sure to establish a proper legal foundation for your response.
... continue to sell the puppies out of there businesses that are at fault also. The less those puppies mills get profit the more they will be forced to shut down. The American Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals says "By buying a pet shop puppy, not only are you likely perpetuating and supporting a cruel industry, you the consumer run the risk of taking home a sick puppy. Dogs from puppy mills have been reportedly diagnosed with ailments such as respiratory infections, and pneumonia, as well as heredity defects like hip dysplasia." A family will be putting their animals that they already have at home in jeopardy of catching a deadly disease that the dog caught at the puppy mill, they will be financially responsible for all pets needing veterinary attention, or may be faced with having to euthanize because of the expenses it takes to cure dogs with diseases.
According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?
Had they been able to do so, Chili’s, the principal in the agency relationship, would have been responsible for the tortious conduct of the patron, the agent. (Cheeseman, p.503) The tort remedies that would have been recoverable from Chili’s might have included “medical expenses; lost wages; pain and suffering; emotional distress; and, in some cases, punitive damages.” (Cheeseman, p.503)
This paper will be exploring the various reasons for establishment of the strict liability rule in dog bite cases which will be complemented with a case study involving a gas meter reader bitten by a dog on private property and whether there are other appropriate rules applicable to such cases.
Have you ever had the pleasure of sitting beside an animal on the Skytrain on your commute to work or stood in line beside one at the grocery store? Did you know that there's a difference between service dogs and emotional-support animals? These are one of the many struggles that individuals are faced when in public. The article "Pets Allowed" written by Patricia Marx gives you an inside look on the struggles people are faced with while also explaining the rules and laws regulating emotional-support animals that many aren't aware of. Many business owners are being taken advantage of by pet
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
It seems as though Brad and Chardonnay have been subject to professional negligence, or more specific negligent misstatement. Professional negligence is very similar to general negligence, one of the significant difference being you cannot claim for economic loss within general negligence but you can in professional (provided specific criteria are met).