Dogs in the grocery store - Page 24

KathyPet · ‎03-09-2010

WHile I have not read any news stories of this nature I am just waiting for the day that I read a story about a store that is being sued by a customer who was bit by a dog that was brought into the store by another customer. WOuld the store be at least partially liable for damages in this case? I would think so. THe stores allow pets to roam their aisles with absolutely no knowledge of the temperament of the dog. A few million dollar law suits would probably stop the practice of stores allowing dogs in their stores.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@KathyPet wrote:
WHile I have not read any news stories of this nature I am just waiting for the day that I read a story about a store that is being sued by a customer who was bit by a dog that was brought into the store by another customer. WOuld the store be at least partially liable for damages in this case? I would think so. THe stores allow pets to roam their aisles with absolutely no knowledge of the temperament of the dog. A few million dollar law suits would probably stop the practice of stores allowing dogs in their stores.

*************************

@KathyPet

I can't see how the store would be liable if it was a service dog. The Americans With Disabilities Act says stores and ALL public places must allow service dogs to go wherever members of the general public are allowed to go.

Service dogs, not pets, and BY LAW, a service dog is NOT A PET.

Plaid Pants2 · ‎03-14-2015

I hear you and agree with you, Noel, but you have to admit that people do lie, and say that their pet dog Fifi, is a "comfort" animal, and that there is no proof that they aren't.

It's when people bring their pets in, that have had zero training of any kind, and people lie and claim that they are "comfort/service" animal, that some of us have a problem with.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:
I hear you and agree with you, Noel, but you have to admit that people do lie, and say that their pet dog Fifi, is a "comfort" animal, and that there is no proof that they aren't.

It's when people bring their pets in, that have had zero training of any kind, and people lie and claim that they are "comfort/service" animal, that some of us have a problem with.

**************************

@Plaid Pants2

You're a little late, I said that pages ago I'm in favor of getting a license, like a drivers license, in case there is a question.

151949 · ‎03-09-2010

@Moonchilde wrote:
@151949 wrote:
@Noel7 You have absolutely no idea at all what someone else's allergies are or how severely they may react to exposure to an allergen or how much of that allergen is required to make a reaction.

You may be the first person to sue the Federal govt about this, then, since you feel so strongly about it - go you.

The ADA material that @Noel7 quotes was also quoted, and read, by me and others. I posted links. The physicians the ADA consulted stated that it was highly unlikely that an allergic person would come to harm from being in the same general space as a dog in a supermarket. Aisles are usually wide.

It was stated that unless a person touches/pets a dog or sticks their face in the dog's coat, no meaningful reaction is likely to occur, and THEREFORE, the ADA's decision, which supercedes and overrides any state or other Federal regulations regarding animals and food, is that *service animals will be allowed in supermarkets, period.

Also, as has been stated multiple times previously in the thread, business owners cannot request "proof" that an animal is a service dog, because there IS no "proof" recognized legally. All they can do is ask the owner if the animal is a service dog. If the owner says yes, there is no "proove it then." End of story.

A store owner/manager is SO protected by the ADA that they don't need to worry about lawsuits from individual allergy sufferers. You'd have to sue the Federal govt - if you could find a lawyer to take the case.

It goes without saying that in order to contemplate consulting an attorney, you would have had to have had a whopper of an allergy attack in the store, with a dog nearby, paramedics and ER, etc, fully independently documented.

So since when is "unlikely" the same as absolutely not?

151949 · ‎03-09-2010

My final word on this subject is - I have found the answers in favor of dogs in grocery stores to be what I consider to be ridiculous and inane. They have no basis in fact or common sense. (of course leaving guide dogs or other HONEST medical needs out of the equation).

JaneMarple · ‎05-23-2011

@151949 wrote:
My final word on this subject is - I have found the answers in favor of dogs in grocery stores to be what I consider to be ridiculous and inane. They have no basis in fact or common sense. (of course leaving guide dogs or other HONEST medical needs out of the equation).

Until next year when this subject will be brought up again!

You Don't Own Me- Leslie Gore
(You don't Know) How Glad I Am- Nancy Wilson

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

I hope that means you changed your tune regarding service dogs for vets, or do you not believe in PTSD either?

@151949

NYC Susan · ‎03-13-2010

@151949 wrote:
In fact though , no matter how much Noel tries to quote to us all these odd ball possibilities - the fact is these are simply pets and nothing else.-- and they are not covered by the Americans with disabilities act. This situation is absolutely ridiculous these days that you can hardly go anywhere without people bringing their - usually very poorly trained - dogs.

They're not "odd ball possibilities". They're very real, and not uncommon. Service animals have saved lives - That's well-documented. They're not just for people who are blind. There are many valid reasons for needing a service dog.

My nephew is severely diabetic, and having his service dog with him at all times could be the difference between life and death. These dogs are trained and provide a service. They are not at all "simply pets".

I don't know where you live, but I can't remember the last time I saw any kind of pet (service or otherwise) in a grocery store or any other kind of store. So your assertion that "you can hardly go anywhere" certainly seems to be a huge exaggeration. You may live nowhere near where I do, but I still find that extremely unlikely.

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

@151949 wrote:
@Moonchilde wrote:
@151949 wrote:
@Noel7 You have absolutely no idea at all what someone else's allergies are or how severely they may react to exposure to an allergen or how much of that allergen is required to make a reaction.

You may be the first person to sue the Federal govt about this, then, since you feel so strongly about it - go you.

The ADA material that @Noel7 quotes was also quoted, and read, by me and others. I posted links. The physicians the ADA consulted stated that it was highly unlikely that an allergic person would come to harm from being in the same general space as a dog in a supermarket. Aisles are usually wide.

It was stated that unless a person touches/pets a dog or sticks their face in the dog's coat, no meaningful reaction is likely to occur, and THEREFORE, the ADA's decision, which supercedes and overrides any state or other Federal regulations regarding animals and food, is that *service animals will be allowed in supermarkets, period.

Also, as has been stated multiple times previously in the thread, business owners cannot request "proof" that an animal is a service dog, because there IS no "proof" recognized legally. All they can do is ask the owner if the animal is a service dog. If the owner says yes, there is no "proove it then." End of story.

A store owner/manager is SO protected by the ADA that they don't need to worry about lawsuits from individual allergy sufferers. You'd have to sue the Federal govt - if you could find a lawyer to take the case.

It goes without saying that in order to contemplate consulting an attorney, you would have had to have had a whopper of an allergy attack in the store, with a dog nearby, paramedics and ER, etc, fully independently documented.
So since when is "unlikely" the same as absolutely not?