Cyrus Dugger

Class Actions, Tort “Reform” & Pets v. People

The blogosphere is currently abuzz with news of the Menufoods pet food recall. For as yet undisclosed reasons, a recent batch of pet food from Menufoods was killing pets by way of liver failure. Stephanie Mencimer, author of the most recent book about the tort “reform” movement, made an interesting point about the forthcoming litigation:

On the other hand, much as I feel for the pet owners, I have to confess secretly hoping that this line of litigation doesn’t go anywhere. The civil justice system has enough fodder for “reformers” to ridicule as it is. Can you imagine these cases going to court? The causation arguments alone will be enough to keep late night talk shows in fits for months.

Like obesity in Vioxx plaintiffs, kidney failure is pretty much epidemic in old cats, of which this country has many (so many, in fact, that the University of Pennsylvania vet school has a thriving feline kidney transplant program). But also, if you figure that defense lawyers will try to show that something other than the pet food caused the kidney failure, then you’re really headed into Comedy Central territory. (link)

At first I agreed in theory, but then didn’t care because ultimately our ability to access the courts when we are wronged is not about sound bites, it’s about righting wrongs. But after some more thought and a conversation with my office mate I realized that Mencimer was wrong, at least as towards the public relations aspects of this issue.

The reason is that people in some ways relate to pets generally, more than they do to other people generally. If a random person or a group of persons are poisoned or injured by a corporation, we feel bad, but we are able to dissociate ourselves from that suffering.

Ironically, people are less prone to do dissociate in the same way regarding corporate negligence that affects the heath of pets. Not only do 63% of American households have pets and therefore relate to the trauma of pet food killing their pet, but people actually own their pets as their property in a way that we don’t own other people.

Perhaps the lack of ownership over others as our property makes is care less, as is logical, I guess.
It’s ironic because most Americans are currently part of one class action or another about important rights or consumers issues right at this very moment (as unnamed plaintiffs), and yet it’s litigation over their pet’s food that sticks as a call to arms.

The point is that despite Mencimer’s great observation, I have not seen this level of blogosphere coverage, outrage, or interest over this type of non-civil rights/non-civil liberties lawsuit very often.

Moreover, even the failure of the lawsuit for the causation reasons that Mencimer mentions could serve as a lesson to the public about the difficulties faced by those attempting to access justice in our nation’s civil justice system.

Those advocating for access to justice and the viability of our class action system of litigation should take note.

Posted at 10:25 AM, Mar 23, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)