Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dog Chat -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (308)	7/6/2006 9:49:07 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Respond to of 8741

Tort Watch for Animal Lovers By Judy Sarasohn Thursday, December 29, 2005; A21 Distraught pet owners are not marching on Washington -- yet -- to win the right to sue for the loss of companionship if their dogs and cats are injured or killed. But that's not stopping lobbyists for pet-medicine manufacturers from keeping an eye on the Hill. And if an issue in Washington has anything to do with liability, lawyer-lobbyist Victor E. Schwartz is not far away. Schwartz is one of the biggest names in product liability defense (he represents the American Tort Reform Association) and is a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon. He and his colleague Philip S. Goldberg recently registered to lobby on behalf of the Animal Health Institute on animal health liability legislation. The institute's member companies include Bayer Healthcare LLC, Hartz Mountain Corp., Monsanto Co., Novartis Animal Health US Inc. and Schering-Plough Animal Health Corp., among others. Pet owners and other animal owners can currently sue for economic damages -- such as the cost of medical care, training or replacing the animal. The institute and veterinarians worry that if Congress, state legislatures or the courts expand that to cover loss of companionship or pain and suffering, the result could be "an insurance crisis" for veterinarians or the companies, Schwartz said. "If soft or non-economic compensatory damages were allowed, costs of vets would zoom, and many animals would not get the care they need or would be put to sleep when not absolutely necessary," Schwartz said. There is no legislation pending, and Schwartz said he is discussing the issue with some lawmakers "very initially." It will be up to the institute to decide next year whether to seek legislation that would restrict non-economic damages, he said. Adrian Hochstadt , assistant director of state legislative and regulatory affairs at the American Veterinary Medical Association, said his group is focusing on the state level, where the vets think the threat of legislation to allow non-economic damages is greatest. If the issue does gain traction on Capitol Hill, Schwartz will see representatives of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals on the other side. "Our laws ought to honor the bonds that human caregivers have" with animals, said Leana Stormont , a PETA counsel. "There's a real difference between property and the animals we share our homes and hearts with. . . . People who grieve for their animals shouldn't have to accept market value as a measure of damages." For the record, Schwartz is the new co-owner of a golden Lab puppy, Kieley; while Goldberg has a 5-year-old husky-shepherd named Quincy. washingtonpost.com