Legal Tips for Rat Poison in Pet Food

Jimmy Boyd

The Wacky Pundit

March 23, 2007


As most pet lovers have already heard, a major company recently distributed pet food contaminated with rat poison all throughout the United States. A rash of kidney failures and even death has scattered across the country.

This incident has even prompted one pet owner to proclaim that the company murdered her pet. While this sentiment is totally understandable under the circumstances, it is important to keep in mind the actual legal rights involved in this situation.

First, there is no such thing as wrongful death for pets. While pets are living and breathing and certainly loving beings, the law does not go quite that far. Although it seems very unemotional, the law generally treats pets merely as personal property. Damages related to the injury or death of a pet are generally the same as damage to any other personal property, such as damage to a house or car.

For example, most pet lovers would consider their pets to be priceless and unreplaceable, but the law generally limits recovery to the value of a similar pet. For instance, if the plaintiff had a dog that generally goes for $500, that would be the amount of damages available to that plaintiff.

However, plaintiffs can receive other damages. In pet cases, these other damages would most likely include vet bills, medication, and any other services related to the injury or death of the pet.

Unfortunately, most courts probably will not award damages for emotional distress. Such damages are usually awarded in cases of personal injury, but pets are regarded as personal property. Because courts do not generally award damages for emotional distress in property-damage cases, most plaintiffs cannot recover for emotional distress.

The good part about this situation for plaintiffs is that it is an easier case to prove than many other types of cases. In most cases, an injured party must prove that the defendant is liable for negligence. Negligence refers to the breach of some legal duty, which is generally a duty to take reasonable care not to harm the person or property of another.

However, the vast majority of states provide for strict liability in product-defect cases. Pet food definitely qualifies as a product in terms of products liability. The advantage of strict liability is that the plaintiff does NOT have to prove that the defendant was negligent. In other words, the mere fact that the pet food contained rat poison in this case is generally enough to show that the defendant is liable and responsible for damages.

Both manufacturers and sellers may be liable in products-liability cases so long as they are in the business of manufacturing or selling those goods. For example, if a pet owner bought pet food at his or her local retail store, that store may also be liable even though it had no idea that the food was contaminated by rat poison. Of course, the actual manufacturer is also responsible even if it had no actual knowledge of the rat poison.

In short, the courts will generally limit damages in pet cases as compared to cases of personal physical injury. Of course, the courts will award the value of the pet, vet bills, and similar expenses. On the other hand, a case like this is easier to prove than most cases because injured pet owners need not prove that the manufacturers and sellers were negligent. The courts generally impose strict liability for product defects even if the defendants had no knowledge whatsoever of the contamination.

Caution: This article is merely a simple introduction to legal issues related to pet-food contamination. It is not legal advice. In addition, laws vary from state to state. Consult a local attorney if your pet has suffered injury or you have any other legal problem.

Jimmy Boyd

The Wacky Pundit