Dog Health after "Pet Friendly" stay...

[DogOwner24]

In August of 2010, my family and I went on vacation to Bethany Beach, DE where we rented a "pet friendly" home. I put pet friendly in quotations because that is what it said in the packet. Our first day there, our small dog was snooping around and ingested some rat poison that was behind the refrigerator. After this occurred, my Mother and Father filled the Realtor in with all of the information while my Wife and I took our dog to Petsmart-Banfield Pet Hospital an hour away. Since then, we have been incurring bill after bill with issues that have come up with our dog, all pertaining to the ingestion of rat poison at a "pet friendly" home. Blood work, medication and other tests that are deemed necessary to be sure there are no permanent ill-effects with our dog. The bills are growing to upwards of $1000 because our dog ingest rat poison at a "pet friendly" home. My question is, should I sue for the money and can I win? The details are there. Receipts, dates, info on the home, all of it. We tried to settle with the Realtor after we incurred our first bill for taking our dog to the vet for an emergency visit but the Realtor simply replied with "it's a pet friendly home". Which it clearly is not.

They are in breach and we have the documentation to prove an exact dollar value of the tests that have gone into making sure my dog is healthy. Should we sue? I don't want a penny more than what we've spent. That's it.

 

[xylene]

You're confused.

Pet friendly does not mean that the home is guaranteed safe for dogs.

It means they are more tolerant of the inevitable urine, feces and chew marks that dogs leave.

You are always responsible for your dog.

Vermin baits are everywhere.

Your dog was not harmed and does not need 1000s of dollars of test to prove the dog is healthy.

 

[HomeGuru]

In August of 2010, my family and I went on vacation to Bethany Beach, DE where we rented a "pet friendly" home. I put pet friendly in quotations because that is what it said in the packet. Our first day there, our small dog was snooping around and ingested some rat poison that was behind the refrigerator. After this occurred, my Mother and Father filled the Realtor in with all of the information while my Wife and I took our dog to Petsmart-Banfield Pet Hospital an hour away. Since then, we have been incurring bill after bill with issues that have come up with our dog, all pertaining to the ingestion of rat poison at a "pet friendly" home. Blood work, medication and other tests that are deemed necessary to be sure there are no permanent ill-effects with our dog. The bills are growing to upwards of $1000 because our dog ingest rat poison at a "pet friendly" home. My question is, should I sue for the money and can I win? The details are there. Receipts, dates, info on the home, all of it. We tried to settle with the Realtor after we incurred our first bill for taking our dog to the vet for an emergency visit but the Realtor simply replied with "it's a pet friendly home". Which it clearly is not.

They are in breach and we have the documentation to prove an exact dollar value of the tests that have gone into making sure my dog is healthy. Should we sue? I don't want a penny more than what we've spent. That's it.

**A: what damages/ill effects has the vet documented to prove that the dog suffered from ingesting the rat poison?

 

[DogOwner24]

Your dog was not harmed and does not need 1000s of dollars of test to prove the dog is healthy.

See, this is where you are wrong and I have a physician's word to prove this as false. Are you a vet? Do you know anything about dogs? Coagulation of blood? Internal bleeding? I've spoken to multiple vets in both Maryland and North Carolina and they all share the opinion without consulting one another. They all said the exact same thing. What rat poison does to small animals won't be seen by the eye. It has to do with blood and artery walls. Here is some common info for you:

"Rat Poison: When a dog weakens gradually, that is not suddenly, a sanguine salivation comes out of his mouth, and his urine and feces also have some blood, it could be a poisoning by Dicumarol (a rats killer) produced from 3 to 5 days before. Dicumarol is a substance that inhibits coagulation, which makes rats, and unfortunately other animals, to bleed to excess even because of small wounds. Dogs are directly intoxicated or by eating an intoxicated rat. The vet has an special antidote (vitamin K) that must be injected several days on a row. If applied on time, cure hopes are good. If the dog loses lots of hair, occasionally vomits or suffers from diarrhea or a cutaneous eruption, the cause could be some other rats killer, thallium. This is an insidious poison, because of its slow manifestations, so when the dog is taken to the vet is too late. There are special antidotes. Treatment could be also very slow."


So as you see, you are quite wrong and I would have no problem arguing all day long that "pet friendly" does not entail the willingness to accept chewing and crapping on the floor. Thanks for wasting my time. Maybe you shouldn't be answering posts on this site and if you're a lawyer, ouch!

 

[HomeGuru]

See, this is where you are wrong and I have a physician's word to prove this as false. Are you a vet? Do you know anything about dogs? Coagulation of blood? Internal bleeding? I've spoken to multiple vets in both Maryland and North Carolina and they all share the opinion without consulting one another. They all said the exact same thing. What rat poison does to small animals won't be seen by the eye. It has to do with blood and artery walls. Here is some common info for you:

"Rat Poison: When a dog weakens gradually, that is not suddenly, a sanguine salivation comes out of his mouth, and his urine and feces also have some blood, it could be a poisoning by Dicumarol (a rats killer) produced from 3 to 5 days before. Dicumarol is a substance that inhibits coagulation, which makes rats, and unfortunately other animals, to bleed to excess even because of small wounds. Dogs are directly intoxicated or by eating an intoxicated rat. The vet has an special antidote (vitamin K) that must be injected several days on a row. If applied on time, cure hopes are good. If the dog loses lots of hair, occasionally vomits or suffers from diarrhea or a cutaneous eruption, the cause could be some other rats killer, thallium. This is an insidious poison, because of its slow manifestations, so when the dog is taken to the vet is too late. There are special antidotes. Treatment could be also very slow."


So as you see, you are quite wrong and I would have no problem arguing all day long that "pet friendly" does not entail the willingness to accept chewing and crapping on the floor. Thanks for wasting my time. Maybe you shouldn't be answering posts on this site and if you're a lawyer, ouch!

**A: reference

 

[DogOwner24]

**A: what damages/ill effects has the vet documented to prove that the dog suffered from ingesting the rat poison?

We will know in the next few days. That's when her blood work will come back. If it comes back being negative and she is showing now ill effects from the rat poison, you don't have to tell me. I wouldn't consider doing anything with this. Just figure she's a sick dog...it happens. If it comes back positive, we will have the blood work to prove it.

 

[You Are Guilty]

As noted, "pet friendly", in common usage, merely means "you are permitted to bring your pets with you". It in no way means, or even suggests, that the area is "guaranteed to be safe for all pets". So while the property owners may want to help reimburse you out of a customer service perspective, they are in no way legally responsible to do so.

Sorry about your dog though.

 

[DogOwner24]

**A: reference

I pulled that from a site about dogs. Wouldn't hold up anywhere. However, it's exactly what the three vets have told us. Needless to say, I won't use the internet as sources I will use certified veterinarians.

 

[DogOwner24]

As noted, "pet friendly", in common usage, merely means "you are permitted to bring your pets with you". It in no way means, or even suggests, that the area is "guaranteed to be safe for all pets". So while the property owners may want to help reimburse you out of a customer service perspective, they are in no way legally responsible to do so.

Sorry about your dog though.

Appreciate it. It seems like it depends on how it's interpreted. For instance, if you go to McDonald's and order hot coffee and it comes to you cold, when you take it to the counter and say you gave me cold coffee..they're not going to say, "well it says HOT coffee on the cup". Facts are facts. What we didn't have is "hot coffee". I do see your point though and really, it does make sense. Leads me to believe I better have a LOT more information before considering a thing.

I appreciate all of your help. Good info and good to see outside perspectives. I need to see angles from people not directly affected by this and it's allowing me to see that this may work, and it may not. Thanks for all your help with this and keep them coming.

 

[You Are Guilty]

If the owners said more to you about the "suitable-ness" of the property for your dog than just "pet-friendly", there may be something to go on. But absent that, I just don't see any way around the issue.

Good luck.

 

[>Charlotte<]

"Pet Friendly" means you are allowed to bring your pet. It does not mean the owner or property manager is responsible for the safety of your pet, and he or they would be out of their minds to make such a promise.

 

[DogOwner24]

If the owners said more to you about the "suitable-ness" of the property for your dog than just "pet-friendly", there may be something to go on. But absent that, I just don't see any way around the issue.

Good luck.

It's a good point. Thanks for your help. I would have to take a look at the contract and get that e-mail from my family.

 

[DogOwner24]

"Pet Friendly" means you are allowed to bring your pet. It does not mean the owner or property manager is responsible for the safety of your pet, and he or they would be out of their minds to make such a promise.

See, I do know what I believe but either way, that doesn't matter because what I believe may not be right. You see people find stuff like this all the time but are blinded by the fact that they are so close to the incident. That's why I am here, to see what someone who is not close to this thinks and honestly, I'm getting outstanding feedback that is giving me ideas and info I never would have considered because I am so close to the situation. Outside perspectives are always good before you act on anything. That I won't ever argue with.

 

[DogOwner24]

"Pet Friendly" means you are allowed to bring your pet. It does not mean the owner or property manager is responsible for the safety of your pet, and he or they would be out of their minds to make such a promise.

Another interesting bit of information like I said before though, "pet friendly" can be interpreted many, many ways. It's up to the Realtor to define it, otherwise you'll run into problems like this. For instance, when I am putting together contracts, I don't leave a single detail (ok, I try my best not to) that can be questioned. It can be tedious to read but there won't be any questions about where everything stands when it's all said and done.

Still thinking that's for certain. You bring in a good perspective, just like the others have.

 

[xylene]

Thallium and old dog.

"Rat Poison: When a dog weakens gradually, that is not suddenly, a sanguine salivation comes out of his mouth, and his urine and feces also have some blood, it could be a poisoning by Dicumarol (a rats killer) produced from 3 to 5 days before. Dicumarol is a substance that inhibits coagulation, which makes rats, and unfortunately other animals, to bleed to excess even because of small wounds. Dogs are directly intoxicated or by eating an intoxicated rat. The vet has an special antidote (vitamin K) that must be injected several days on a row. If applied on time, cure hopes are good. If the dog loses lots of hair, occasionally vomits or suffers from diarrhea or a cutaneous eruption, the cause could be some other rats killer, thallium. This is an insidious poison, because of its slow manifestations, so when the dog is taken to the vet is too late. There are special antidotes. Treatment could be also very slow."

It is extremely unlikely that a modern packaged rat bait contained thallium.

Your dog was exposed to, for its body mass, a trivial amount of anti coagulant.

If a vitamin K shot is even warranted, it will not cost thousands or involve thousands of dollars worth of follow up treatment.

You dog would have had to have been severely poisoned to warrant an extensive vitamin K therapy regime, and even that would not cost 1000

And no matter what it cost, the realtor is not liable.

You are responsible for protecting your dogs from ordinary hazards like vermin baits, which in this modern world are everywhere.