DELETED_3139

Status
Not open for further replies.
AtreuS said:
There is always a risk when you give a general anethetic to a small animal. You will have have signed a waiver before the operation absolving the vet of blame should the animal die due to the anethestic. If however the vet was negligent in administering the operation and that caused the death than thats another matter, however i would think that would be hard to prove without getting another independant vet to do an autopsy!
Click to expand...

See my post above ;)
 
Scuzi said:
It doesn't work like that in the real world if the owner did not authorise the treatment. For example, if you were away on holiday and someone vandalised your fake M5 by keying it. A good samaritan contacts a bodyshop who come and pick up the car and respray the whole thing. You arrive home to a massive bill for work you didn't even know about. Would you pay it?
Click to expand...
It does work like that in emergency situations - not in your example, but if your house was flooded while you were away and you were presented with a bill from a plumber/neighbour when you get back, you'd have to pay it.
 
My cat got knocked down and was obviously in a lot of pain and we asked for her to be put down. The vet refused and without permission did surgery, the cat still died, then billed us £350. Nice one.
 
Wicksta said:
I'm sure the vet knows that the OP isn't legally obliged to pay, but if everyone stopped paying then they would just turn every single emergency case away that involved a pet who's owners had not yet been located. If there was a way to put a sign on a pet saying "If found alone and injured, please take to vet and owner will pay" then I expect 99% of pet owners would do it. The vet is relying on people's honesty, once that disappears then so does the chance of survival for a lot of people's loved pets.
Click to expand...
Yes but on the same note the vet cannot expect to pursue payment further if the owner refuses.


It does work like that in emergency situations - not in your example, but if your house was flooded while you were away and you were presented with a bill from a plumber/neighbour when you get back, you'd have to pay it.
Click to expand...
How is that situation relevant to this thread? In your example where a house is flooded, there is a legal obligation to maintain a property to a certain standard so that it does not affect neighbouring properties and so on. There is no obligation to pay veterinary fees if a vet takes it upon himself to treat your pet without your consent.
 
Scuzi said:
How is that situation relevant to this thread? In your example where a house is flooded, there is a legal obligation to maintain a property to a certain standard so that it does not affect neighbouring properties and so on. There is no obligation to pay veterinary fees if a vet takes it upon himself to treat your pet without your consent.
Click to expand...
Perfectly relevant. Someone is allowed to enter into a contract on your behalf - as your 'agent'. You can give them direct permission to do this, or it can be implied (i.e. if they work for you or work for a company). Or, if it is an emergency situation and the person can't be contacted, they can enter into a contract on your behalf by necessity.

Say your cat was dying and they tried to call you, but couldn't get hold of you: Rather than leave it there, they can take it to a vet, get it treated, and you'd be liable for either the bill or to reimburse the 'agent' - provided that the conditions were met: Emergency situation (something has to be done now), unable to contact the principal, and that the action was taken in good faith and wasn't just for the agent's benefit.
 
So the vets failed and are still charging you for it. I personally wouldn't pay for a job that wasn't completed. Nor would I expect to be paid for something I failed to do.
 
Last edited:
csmager said:
Perfectly relevant
Click to expand...

No it isn't because that isn't the case here. The OP is not liable for any costs at all since he was not consulted and did not give permission. It was the vet's decision to carry out the treatment and conveniently the vet who will be reaping the monetary rewards.

Your example is irrelevant to this scenario.
 
Scuzi said:
No it isn't because that isn't the case here. The OP is not liable for any costs at all since he was not consulted and did not give permission. It was the vet's decision to carry out the treatment and conveniently the vet who will be reaping the monetary rewards.
Click to expand...
I was assuming it was the stranger's decision to take the animal to the vet, and the stranger who asked the vet to save the animal's life. I doubt he just wandered in, dumped the cat and left the vet to decide what to do about it. If it was the vet who decided what to do, the same prinicpal applies - but there'd be an argument that the vet may have been acting in his own interests as he may have known the cat was going to die.

The OP didn't have to be consulted (although effort to contact him should have been made if possible).
 
csmager said:
Why? The stranger has the authority to enter into the contract on his behalf if he couldn't be contacted. He didn't need to give authorisation personally, as it was effectively given.
Click to expand...
lol that's not how it works.

The only person who is liable for the charges is the guy who walked into the vets office, unless he categorically stated he denies responsibility for them; in which case, it needs to come out of the vet's pocket.
 
JimpsEd said:
lol that's not how it works.

The only person who is liable for the charges is the guy who walked into the vets office, unless he categorically stated he denies responsibility for them; in which case, it needs to come out of the vet's pocket.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
JimpsEd said:
lol that's not how it works.

The only person who is liable for the charges is the guy who walked into the vets office, unless he categorically stated he denies responsibility for them; in which case, it needs to come out of the vet's pocket.
Click to expand...
It's a defined legal principal with plenty of case law.... but I shall stop banging my head against a wall.

If anyone who's studied contract law for longer than me would care to tell me exactly why I'm wrong, I'd be grateful. I could well be - I'd just like to know why.
 
So the vets failed and are still charging you for it. I personally wouldn't pay for a job that wasn't completed. Nor would I expect to be paid for something I failed to do.
Click to expand...

The vet did not fail.. a mortally wounded cat was brought in, the vet tried what was possible to save it's life.

What would be failing would be to turn the cat away as no one was paying to attempt to save it's life.

Vets are not miracle workers, it was no doubt a distressing time for the vet too, they don't like having to deal with fatally wounded animals.

Cats can be trained too, not as easily as dogs, if you have a pet be responsible don't let it wonder about the roads.

I am appalled at some of the posters ethics, lets hope your never lying on the kirb wounded after being run over, have a ambulance turn up to find your poor, then drive off without you. (this happens in many places in the world).
 
For the people bashing the OP - IMO the only person with a moral responsibilty to pay for this bill is the **** who hit it with a car. They caused the injury, they are the ones with the responsibility to care for it.

Personally, having discovered animals that have been mortally injured I have always killed them myself. Prolonging their life long enough to take them to a vet is just cruel.

Whilst I don't feel there is any obligation to pay, I fully respect the OP sentiment that they probably would.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom