Pet Owners Find Little Comfort in Court

Tough Cases, Modest Payments

By Jillian Olsen | December 16, 2008

When Peg Castetter’s cat, Sadie, passed away after being treated with a Hartz anti-flea product, her first impulse was to call a lawyer. “I want to be compensated,” she said. “The value of the pet is not going to be enough… You can’t pet a box of ashes.”

Castetter is still talking to attorneys about the possibility of a lawsuit, but for her and others who believe their animals have been harmed by a pet product, the legal options are limited. The conventional legal wisdom is that plaintiffs will receive at most the market value of the animal, explained Joyce Tischler, founder and general counsel at the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), a group of attorneys and advocates that works to protect animals through the legal system. In most jurisdictions, pets are simply considered property as a matter of law, which means that pain and suffering on the part of an owner cannot be taken into account.

“Some people have lost their pets — luckily ours survived — and all they’ll do at most is pay your vet bill,” said Michele Worcester, whose mini dachshund, Ellie, suffered chemical burns after the application of a pyrethroid spot on flea control product from Farnam. Worcester initially wanted to bring a lawsuit against the company, but instead accepted their offer to reimburse the vet bill.

Credit: www.supremecourtus.gov

The limited potential returns can make the challenge of mounting a strong case discouraging for both pet owners and attorneys. “It’s difficult to handle an individual case, pitted against a large company,” Tischler said. “You need veterinary forensics testimony, proof. These are very lengthy, time-consuming cases to take.”

Proof of fault is hard to come by, particularly with popular over-the-counter pyrethroid spot on products, since a general autopsy will not show any signs “specific enough to warrant a diagnosis of pyrethroid toxicosis,” explained Richard Jakowski, associate professor of pathology for the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University.

The ALDF does not take these cases as a rule, Tischler said, adding that the number of cases others have brought against pet product manufacturers is unclear. Any attorney that decided to pursue a lawsuit would “have to have an incredible amount of tenacity and money,” she said.

One class action attorney described the situation as a legal Catch-22: No lawyer will take an individual case because of the limited returns, but proving that certain products were responsible for a large number of illnesses in a class action suit is too time-consuming to make the case worthwhile.

Sergeant’s sometimes offers to foot a portion of the vet bill if a customer agrees, as the release form indicates, “not to make any oral or written communication which disparages or has the effect of damaging the reputation of or otherwise working in any way to the detriment of Sergeant’s.” Signing the release form eliminates the possibility of pursuing a lawsuit. The company has never been sued, according to a Sergeant’s spokeswoman.

Sara Paredes, whose cat, Rosie, died after a bath with Sergeant’s Skip-Flea & Tick Shampoo for Cats, declined Sergeant’s offer of $240. “They tried to have me sign a contract that says you’ve received compensation and then you can’t say anything about this to anyone,” she said, “but I didn’t want that, because I’ve been working to try to bring awareness about this to other people.” She is not considering legal action, but has focused instead on informing others about her experience through the Internet. The product was not responsible for the cat’s death, according to a letter from a Sergeant’s representative to Paredes. The representative said the 16-year-old cat was too old for treatment. The label does warn against using the product on aged cats, although it does not specify an age limit.

Hartz representatives would not say how many settlements they reach each year with consumers, but the company makes it a policy to give unsatisfied customers a full refund for the product. “As for refunding medical expenses,” they said via email, “this is decided on a case-by-case basis, once it has been established with a high confidence that a Hartz product was involved, depending on the legitimacy of the alleged complaint and the outcome of the Hartz veterinarian’s review process.”