More on the poisoned-pet litigation

I have to amend my comments from last week about the pending pet food poisoning litigation. If the pet food is tainted with an exotic rat poison not used in the U.S., causation in the ensuing lawsuits ought to be pretty clear cut. So I'll stick to my first reaction to the lawsuits, which is that the discovery ought to be really, really interesting.

Meanwhile, lots of bloggers have pointed out that grieving pet owners can only sue Menu Foods for the cost of their pets, and not, in most states, for any emotional suffering or loss of companionship, making the company's legal liability rather limited. But presumably pet owners can also recoup the money they paid out for vet bills. As a result, Menu Foods might have some reason to worry, particularly if the death toll in affluent metropolitan areas continues to climb. In this era of gold-plated veterinary care, those bills can be substantial. The Washington Post reported Saturday on a 22-year-old woman who spent $8,000 trying to save her poisoned dog at clinic where the intensive care unit runs $6,000 a week...