• 1

    Van Klootwyk v Schering-Plough Corp, 1993 US App LEXIS 3093 (8th Cir 1993).

  • 2

    Duckler GL, Campbell DM. Nature of the beast: is animal law nipping at your heals? Oregon State Bar Bulletin 2001;61: 16.

  • 3

    Soucek v Banham, 524 NW2d 478, 481 (Minn Ct App 1994).

  • 4

    Whitmer v Schneble, 331 NE2d 115 (Ill App Ct 1975).

  • 5

    Latham v Walmart Stores Inc, 818 SW2d 673, 676 (Mo Ct App 1991).

  • 6

    Parent J. Every dog can have its day: extending liability beyond the seller by defining pets as “products” under products liability theory. Animal Law Review 2005–2006;12:241250.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Beyer v Aquarium Supply Co, 404 NYS2d 778 (NY Sup Ct 1977).

  • 8

    Sease et al v Taylor's Pets Inc, 700 P2d 1054 (Or Ct App 1985).

  • 9

    UCC §2-314 (2006).

  • 10

    Bowles v Zimmer Mfg Co, 277 F2d 868, 875 (7th Cir 1970).


The impact of products liability law on veterinary medicine

View More View Less
  • 1 Mr. Parent is an associate with The Law Offices of Beauregard, Burke & Franco, New Bedford, MA 02741

Until now, veterinarians involved in malpractice litigation have generally not had to deal with most of the consumer-oriented principles of products liability. In fact, aside from prescription drug litigation, whereby veterinarians have a limited potential to incur liability as retailers of the drug at issue, products liability law has had little impact on the field of veterinary medicine. More often, the limited circumstances under which products liability law has been applied have involved consumers bringing suit against drug manufacturers for defective vaccines or harmful effects of their products.1 In these instances, even if a prescribing veterinarian were named

Contributor Notes

Material provided in this article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Readers should consult with a licensed attorney for legal advice and to address specific concerns.