I worked at PetCetera (fittingly called PetCemetary by the staff for their wonderful animal care techniques), the Canuck version of these stores, and it’s amazing how many people just walk away after their precious has defecated in the middle of an aisle.
However, most pet owners were willing to clean up after their pet and would inform a store slave -er- associate when they had an incident.
Personally I boycott the pet superstores now, but I think they’re a good place to socialize dogs, as long as there isn’t an idiot on the other end of that leash. Some people need to understand that having their 95 lb labrador jumping all over you isn’t cute.
FWIW, the clean-up stations only recently appeared in PetSmart stores here. Before that, I wouldn’t take my dog in, because if he “dropped” something, I couldn’t clean it up, and would feel like a jack-ass leaving it there.
beagledave. you might want to read the court’s opinion. In there, you will find that Kentucky law isn’t quite yet settled on this point. The trial court granted summary judgment because dog feces are an open and obvious danger and it would have been the woman’s responsibility to avoid it. There are cases in other jurisdictions, though, where a business can be found liable for operating in a manner where the business knows these dangers are likely to happen, then the business is responsible regardless of whether the business knew about the particular pile in question. The court described it as:
In other words, since PetSmart encourages customers to bring dogs, and since some dog is likely to defecate in the store, it is PetSmart’s reponsibility to take reasonable steps to remove the danger. Leaving it up to the customer, given what we’ve read in this thread, is not a reasonable course of action for PetSmart. The court describes this as the rule in many other jurisdictions, so that suggests this case isn’t frivolous.
Also, you are losing me on why this case should mean a ban of children in stores. How are children like dogs for the purposes of this rule?
It occurs to me that Petsmart could have avoided this situation entirely with a little forethought in the design of their stores. If the whole premise of the store is that you can bring your pets with you, then the designers should have taken that into account. It should have been fairly easy to put down some kind of non-skid surface rather than that nice slick tile they used. That would make it much easier for the dogs to walk around and significantly reduce the danger of slipping on foreign substances/secretions. Not to say that the woman isn’t an idiot in this case - if you’re in a store where dogs are welcome it should be common sense to watch your step. Still, I just think a little extra design effort could have saved Petsmart a whole lotta grief.
Amen! Of course, for all we know, the dog’s owner was en route to find and inform a store employee, but frankly, it’s also likely that he/she just snuck away.
This thread seems to me to be about two very valid things: first, that the nature of lawsuits that are considered legitimate nowadays has truly gone to the dogs; and second, that some dog owners (such as the one in question, assuming that the pile of poo was just left for someone to “discover”) kind of ruin it for the rest of us.
As a dog owner (who promptly removes my dogs’ poo from any property that doesn’t belong to me, indoors or outdoors–primarily outdoors), I tend to frequent websites that list “pet friendly” businesses (such as stores, hotels, employers, etc.) and such websites always emphasize etiquette, etiquette, etiquette (common sense stuff like having a trained and well-behaved dog, and having plastic bags handy for poo disposal) when you’re taking your dog anywhere with you, so that businesses will continue to be pet-friendly.
So in short, we’ve got the assholes who breach the etiquette, and the assholes who feel like it’s worth a law suit when they slip in poo. Eventually, everyone suffers.
I don’t know about every PETsMART, but all the ones in the Phoenix areas have multiple stations around the store with cleaning supplies and notices to owners that say something to the effect of, “Accidents happen. If your pet has an accident, here’s everything you could possibly need to clean up after it, in the interests of courtesy and safety for yourself and other shoppers.”
IANAL, but I would think this would go some ways toward removing the store itself from liability and placing it back in the hands of the pet owner, where it rightfully should be.
There is also an element of caveat emptor when one knows leashed pets are welcomed and encouraged by the store, as it noted by the BIG signs on every PETsMART door. I think the risk of shit, piss or drool on the floor would be one that passes the “reasonable person” test under such conditions.
It would if that was the point I was trying to make. I originally stated that the pet owner who left the pile on the floor should be responsible (which probably means we are arguing a moot point). I also stated that PetSmart would probably end up taking the rap voluntarily as a result of a “good business practice”.
My personal feeling, though, is that the pet owner should be punished. Where I come from, leaving any kind of feces anywhere it doesn’t “belong” is unacceptable behavior…even if it is the pet owner’s own yard.
