Couple suing grocer after their dog was hurt trying to grab store's leaflet from mailbox.

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | January 4, 2004 | staff writer

[yankeedame]

Lawsuit over hurt dog

From correspondents in London
January 4, 2004

A COUPLE is suing a British supermarket chain after their dog was hurt trying to grab one of the store's leaflets from their letterbox.

Gordon and Susan Musselwhite say Muffin the dachshund dislocated a disc when he jumped for the flyer from the Safeway chain.

The injury left the pet needing surgery to remove a disc, costing almost £1500 ($3570).

Mr Musselwhite, 62, and his wife are now preparing to face the supermarket giant in court.

The couple maintain there are signs at their house saying they do not want circulars.

Safeway has rejected liability and is refusing to pay damages.

The Sunday Telegraph

[annyokie]

Their dog isn't trained (I assume) and now they want to sue?

Why am I not surprised?

[Support Free Republic]

Free Republic. More Bang For The Buck!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[fnord]

dachshunds can jump?

[Triple Word Score]

Not white ones.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

No soliciting means no soliciting... If it hadn't been for that little bit of info, I'd say sh*t happens.

[fnord]

lol

[mhking]

Just damn.

If you want on the new list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[Hodar]

The couple maintain there are signs at their house saying they do not want circulars.

Let's see, owners of a property post signs indicating they do not want circulars; someone takes it upon themselves to ignore these signs. Perhaps actions do have consequences.

[cyn]

lol!

[Steve Eisenberg]

No soliciting means no soliciting.

I guess that the supermarket people are lucky that, to the best of my knowledge, this case will not be tried by jury. I wonder how much discovery the supermarket will have to allow so that the plaintiff can try proving that training given those who deliver the circulars is inadequate. Unless, that is, the Royal Mail delivers the circulars. In that case, should the Queen be liable?

[cyn]

It was in their letterbox, as I read it. We are not told if it was placed there by the postperson or a store representative. Are they saying the dog knocks himself out just because it is an advertisement? Or might he do this for any brightly colored Christmas card? Perhaps they set him up for failure when they named him Muffin!; he has to pull stunts like this to prove his machismo?

Be that as it may, you are so right -- s*#@ happens.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Let's see, owners of a property post signs indicating they do not want circulars; someone takes it upon themselves to ignore these signs. Perhaps actions do have consequences.

Yes, the action of breeding a dog into a certain long shape means that they have a lot of back problems as they get older. But to think that a specific back problem can be tied to a specific jump which it just so happens is associated with a party having lots of money -- this is ridiculous. Probably, everyone knows this, but plaintiffs think they are asking so little money that the market will give it to them just to go away. I hope they don't.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Yep. Poor dog.

[cyn]

Might be he just wasn't dressed for the occasion.

.

[cyn]

A dog named Muffin

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The article doesn't indicate whether the doggy's health was the reason they didn't want circulars.

[honeygrl]

"No soliciting means no soliciting... If it hadn't been for that little bit of info, I'd say sh*t happens."

bingo. Our apartment complex has a sign that says no soliciting at the entrance yet the jerks STILL come knocking on my door anyway trying to sell newspapers and other junk. I wish I had a dog to chase them off. (of course, then they'd probably sue ME)

[Hodar]

So the dog has been bred to have a long spine. That is not the point.

If a person posts signs on his property that say "No Soliciting", "No Trespassing" or "Please be Quiet" because he has animals giving birth (and some animals will kill and eat their young if distrurbed during labor). The property owner has done, to the best of his ability, enough to ensure that his property is protected.

Now, a 3rd party takes it upon themselves to tresspass on private property, and performs an action in direct contravention of the property owner's wishes, it seems to me that the intruder (who has absolutely no business on the property to begin with) assumes financial responsiblity for the damage his actions inflict.

If I set off firecrackers, M-80's and blare my horn in a retirement center, where it is clearly posted "No Tresspassing",and "Quiet Please". And my activity causes an elderly resident who lives here to have a stroke; I have done exactly the same type of offence as the Grocery chain. I have ignored posted signs, I have trespassed on private property and done whatever I wished to do. In doing so, my actions had consequences; and I will be held accountable for those actions.

The only difference between the article and my example, is that my example involved hurting humans, and the article hurt a pet. Other than the severity of the damage, the actions/consequences rationality holds true.

If the Grocery chain had honored the posted signs, and had not trespassed where they were not welcome; this suit would not have existed.