• 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

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.