Replies

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.

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.