Cross-posted from Tort Deform
By Professor Henry Greenspan
As lawsuits continue to pile up over dogs and cats poisoned by adulterated pet food, pet food manufacturers can learn a lot from the ways drug companies have defended themselves.
With that in mind, here are some of the arguments they may want to deploy:
- All pet foods have dangers.
- Pet food manufacturers deserve protection. After all, they are constantly pouring billions of dollars into the risky business of developing new, life-sustaining chows and kibbles.
- Pet food manufacturers are just the demon du jour. The media rarely reports all the great things the industry is doing for animals that cannot afford commercial pet food. When, for example, is the last time you read the good news about table scraps?
- If there actually was a rat, the cat would have smelled it.
- The "tort tax" will inevitably drive up the cost of pet food, with the consequence that millions of pets will simply starve to death on your sofa. Eventually, so will you.
- Like pharmaceuticals, pet foods are regulated by the FDA, the gold standard of safety throughout the world. FDA's approval of a doggy biscuit should preempt state tort liability.
- Let's be fair. If dogs (or their lawyers) feel endangered, they can always grab you by the throat, whip you around like a rag doll, bite through your carotid arteries, and kill you. All pet food manufacturers can do is phone someone in Congress.
- Given that cats have nine lives, they obviously have a few to spare. If not, it becomes evident that pre-existing medical conditions, and bad lifestyle choices, caused their demise.
- Because cats and dogs cannot vote or hold public office, they should not be allowed to manipulate the vagaries of state courts and the emotions of lay juries. Rather, their cases should be referred to a Special Master to decide whether they are, in fact, dead.
Or just playing.