Slip and Fall Suits against Petsmart,Inc - Research Paper Example

? Slip and Fall Suits against Petsmart Petsmart Company Petsmart, Inc is the largest retail business that offers complete pet grooming, pet adoption, and pet training. The company is the leading provider of pet and training information. The retail chain operates in Canada, Puerto Rico, and the United States. The company’s products range from dog, cat, horse, bird, fish to small animal products. Since its existence; the company provides a broad range of pet products, pet food, and offers complete pet boarding, training, grooming, adoption services, and doggie day camp. Petsmart has more than 1, 107 stores in the United States, and Canada, and 132 stores with pet supplies and pet care information. Petsmart opened its first stores in 1987 in the Phoenix under the name Pet Food Warehouse. As the company progressed, the logo and the name changed to Petsmart. The company provides homes for the homeless pets, supply pets products, and offer adequate training on pet grooming. In 2005, the company declared that the purpose for rebranding its name to Petsmart was to emphasize its evolution from the pet supply store to the solution-oriented business. Indeed, the company continues to offer pet assistance and adoption centers, creating a platform to comprehend pet care information. The company has diligently worked to offer pet solution, which, in turn, has boosted the company sales and revenues. Since 1987, there has been a 10% increase of the average client spending per month, which has increased the company’s revenues and sales. As mentioned earlier, the company has created a platform for the community to acquire benefits that emerge from using its products. Studies show that most homes can now understand pet grooming through adequate training that the company offers (Bark & Clark, 2011). Indeed, pets and dogs grow smarter each year with the support of accredited training instructor. The company ensures that pets are well behaved and happy thus, solving problems that emerge from disobedience. Founded in 1986; Petsmart opened the first two stores in 1987 and in 1989, the logo, and name changed from Pet Food to the Petsmart. In 1994, the company formed a non-profit organization that provides homes for the homeless pets. Indeed, Petsmart is a solution-oriented company that offers pet products and services to approximately 1,160 stores, and many offer veterinary services. The company distributes pet supplies and a wide variety of services such as pet training and grooming. The company has significantly helped the community with basic information required to maintain a suitable pet environment. Instead of selling cats, rabbits, dogs, and other animals in the store, the company offers a space to the local rescue groups and donates litter, food, and other essential pet supplies. In each adoption, the company gives each guardian a book that offers basic information about pet care and its suitable products. Since 2004, the company has served more than 100,000 pets as it extends its services online in pets.com. As a result, many can access the company’s products and communicate with pets’ expertise on how to care for pets. How liability suits affect the Petsmart and the community as whole In respond to this, one should comprehend the concept of business ethics. Usually, business ethics entails three things: to avoid violating the criminal law in a work related activity, evade actions that may attribute in civil law suits against the business, and avoid actions that disrupt the company’s image. According to Datamonitor Firm (2000), companies are concerned with these things since they may lead to loss of money and ruin company’s reputation. Datamonitor Firm continues to argue that, in theory, a company could address the three concerns by assigning public relations and corporate attorneys to obligate employees to perform their duties effectively. Indeed, the strong version of the profit approach demands strategies that morally augment a morally upright environment, which failure affects the business community. The following is an outline of how liability suits against Petsmart affect the business community. One should understand that the liability suits of Petsmart affirm that if one is involved in a dog attack, one may have claims against the dog’s owner and the company in whole. This implies that when an individual is injured, the company is liable to pay and compensate the damages caused. Still, when a dog attacks or bites someone, the dog’s owner is liable and responsible for any resulting injuries. If one dies as a result of dog attack or bite at the company, the next of kin should claim the compensation (Petsmart, Inc, 1900). With no doubt; this liability suits affect the business community in many ways. First, this would create a platform for the company to operate in debts in an attempt to compensate for damages and attacks caused by the dog bites. The cultural society demands a company not operating under debts, which failure damages the company’s reputation. While studying the company financial overview, one should pay attention to risks that emerge from debts. In facts, debts can be of a concern to the community borne in mind; liability can trigger financial disaster. For instance, approaches to win liability against companies lead to widely publicized allegations that eventually are attributed to regulators’ costly responses or times damaging the company’s reputation, thus decreasing the demand for its goods and services. This implies that debts would eventually decrease the demand for the community to purchase the company’s products. It is obvious that debts may cause mistrust to the product costs and prices. The business community may fail to trust price changes in that many may view it as an opportunity to accuse the company. To some extent, some may tend to think that the company is increasing its products costs to eliminate the debts. With no doubt, this would negatively affect the decision-making process for investors, consumers, and the company in whole. Particularly, the management may encounter challenges while making decisions based on liability. It is obvious that the management team would fail to comprehend the company’s growth and predict the possible outcome due to liability suits. The liability causes more harm economically depending on how it affects decisions in the company. There may be misunderstandings in management in arguing whether the loss that the company experiences is justifiable or not. In the process, this may negatively influence the decision-making process. Secondly, the liability suit creates a platform for more accusations. The liability suit obligates that if someone dies because of a dog attack or bite, the next of kin should claim against the victim. In response, this would cause more accusations particularly if the victim suffered from a different disease. The company may need to compensate the victim despite suffering from other disease, which may be the cause of his or her death. As the liability suit states, every dog bites demands some disfigurement; it positively affects the business community. In fact, it creates an ideal for the company respecting human rights. It allows victims to air their voice when involved in dog bites and attacks. At least, the victim may claim against both the company and the dog’s owner, thus respecting human rights. Compensations of the dog attack may include amounts for hospital bills, lost income, pain, and any emotional suffering (Porter, n.d.). The process that a claimant would take to file a suit against Petsmart The first process that a claimant would take to file a suit against Petsmart is a registration process designed to collect basic facts and information about the claim made. The registration process involves a number of steps. First, the court proceedings begin with the filling of the complaint and the issuance of the summons. The complaint creates a ground for a lawsuit by stating the damages, and injuries, and the person responsible for them. Still, it makes a statement on why the court demands to hear and act towards the case. Secondly, the court summons and directs the defendant to file an answer with the court on the date specified. The court gives the defendant time to respond to the complaint and summons imposed. For instance, in this case, Petsmart may deny the charges or assert the claims made. An example of this is the case filed against Petsmart by Mr. Holloway for not cleaning the floor that caused injuries. As discussed below, the company affirmed that,Mr. Holloway was responsible for his own injuries and negligence, and not the negligence of the company not cleaning the floor. Along with this, the company may also file a counterclaim of the fact it is working towards the damages caused. In this context, the counterclaim may appeal that instead of the defendant being liable for injuries and damages caused, it may argue to have previously taken actions to prevent severe damages. In other cases, a counterclaim may state that the defendant was negligent and responsible for his injuries or damages. As discussed, in the proceedings the attorney documents a complaint that describes and explores basic information and facts of the case, names people involved, references legal theories that back up the claim, and states the agreement of action. The above are effective steps that a claimant would take to file a suit against Petsmart. After this completion, there are steps carried out to determine whether the victim is responsible for the illegal action or not. First, the physical, psychological, and mental examinations determine whether the individual is competent. After the case proceeds to trial, a jury hears the case, and each party have a chance to respond to the case. Secondly, there may be needed to call witnesses and evidence to support the claim imposed against the defendant. Afterwards, lawyers cross-examine witness’ testimony to find out whether information given is reliable or not. After the witnesses give adequate evidence, the lawyer for the defendant may appeal to the court to dismiss the case for lack of proof. At this point, there must be adequate evidence to prove the accusation. After collecting adequate evidence, each should acquire a closing statement summarizing its argument and ask the court to provide approving judgment. While the above steps provide a broad outline followed in civil courts, it is important to bear in mind that the state court rules vary from place to place (Packaged Facts Firm, 2009). Cases filed against Petsmart. There have been numerous cases filed against Petsmart. Early this year, two women filed a case against Petsmart, claiming that the pet groomers had accidentally chopped the Dog’s ears, and later attempted to hide the injuries. In this case, Kapuwai Gladys accused the company for defiling his rights by not meeting his or her consumer needs. Gladys reported that in July, she took her dog to the Petsmart for routine glooming, and two days later, she discovered that one of his dog’s ears was missing. According to Gladys, the company had chopped the dog’s ear and tried to fix it with glue. She became suspicious after discovering that the dog was bloody, which the doctor denied to be before the treatment. Therefore, when she took the dog back to the company, the doctor claimed that the dog looked like that, and tried to glue the ear back. Gladys claimed that the Petsmart negligence caused emotional distress, thus accusing the company of violating his emotional rights. There was adequate evidence to prove that the company violated the law by chopping the dog’s ear. Gladys hoped that the lawsuit would impose strict guidelines for Petsmart to improve safety standards and training that does not violate clients’ rights. The two women sued Petsmart claiming that the groomers chopped their dog’s ears. The defendant demanded compensatory damages to settle both his emotional distress and the fact that their pets suffered injury. The case proceeded to the high court for further proceedings. The parties will seek approval from the court by the end of this year. In 2009, there was a case filed against Petsmart by Robert Holloway who claimed that the employees were negligent in their responsibilities. In this case, employees ignored to scrape the poop which, in turn, caused injuries. Holloway claimed that Petsmart’s employees failed to clean up messes that eventually were attributed to his falling down. In the case, Holloway stated that even though the company offers pet solutions to the community, it should create a safe environment for both employees and clients. The fall was so painful that it caused Mr. Holloway to have a back operation. This case was unusual; most victims fall on slippery surfaces. However, these damages would damage the spine, and in the future cause serious problems. Of course, having neglected to clean messes would be attributed to severe damages that to some extent may lead to death cases. In a recent case, Kroger store awarded a man who slipped on the floor and injured his spine. Mr. Hollaway accused the company for the accidents that occurred, claiming that there would be a safe environment free from injuries if there were no slippery floor. Following this, Petsmart settled the suit by denying any wrongdoing stated by Holloway, and denied the injuries caused by slipping. The company affirmed that an employee was on his way to clean up messes; thus, there was no cause of injuries (Bark & Clark, 2011). The case proceeded to the court of appeal whereby the Court accused the company for not having a safe environment for both employees and clients. The Court affirmed that the company should obligate cleanliness and a safe environment; which, in turn, would eradicate common injuries as that of Holloway. Mr. Holloway showed his injuries caused by the employees’ negligence to clean the floor. The court accused the company to be responsible for Holloway’s injuries by failing to clean the floor. With this in mind, the Company compensated Holloways’ injuries, which in the future would be a lesson to most companies that neglect to maintain an environment free from injuries. Conclusion Following this, this essay affirms that Petsmart, Inc is a retail business that offers a wide range of pet grooming, pet adoption, and pet training services. The company operates in various parts of the world such as Canada and the United States. Typically, the company has strongly embraced technology devices in marketing and interacting with their clients globally. In this context, many people can online access pet care information without the need to travel for miles. Since 1986, the company has significantly helped the community with adequate basic knowledge of pet care; thus, many adequately understand how to take care of pets. In respond to many claims that emerge from dogs attacks, the liability suits demands that when an individual is injured, the company is liable to pay and compensate for the damages caused. Additionally, when a dog attacks or bites someone, the dog’s owner is responsible for any resulting injuries. Lastly, the next of kin should claim the compensation when his or her relative dies from the dog attack. As discussed in the essay, this affects the business community in many ways. First, the company may end operating in debts in attempt to compensate for the damages caused by dog attacks. Secondly, it creates a platform for more accusations. However, the liability suit creates an idyllic approach of the company respecting human rights (Datamonitor Firm, 2000). The essay has also discussed the process that a claimant would take to file a suit against Petsmart. As explored, the steps involved are describing and exploring the basic information and facts of the case, naming people involved, referencing legal theories that back up the claim, and stating the agreement of action. An example of cases filed against Petsmart involves two women who filed a case against Petsmart, asserting that the pet groomers had accidentally chopped the Dog’s ears. Later, the case proceeded to the high court for further proceedings. The parties will seek approval from the court by the end of this year. The second case is of Holloway who claimed that Petsmart’s employees attributed to his falling down for having not cleaned the floor, which later made the company compensate for the damages. References Admin in Doga news. (February 16, 2012). Petco sued for cutting Dog’s era off, gluing it back. Retrieved from: http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2012/02/petco-sued-for-cutting-dogs-ear-off-gluing-it-back-on/ Bark & Clark. (2011). Petsmart settles Dog Poop Slip and injure case. Retrieved from: http://barkandclark.blogspot.com/2011/02/petsmart-settles-dog-poop-slip-and.html Datamonitor Firm. (2000). PetSmart, Inc. New York, NY: Datamonitor Packaged Facts Firm. (2009). Pet care services in the U.S: Riding the multiservice premium/luxury and corporate waves. Rockville, Md: Packaged Facts. Petsmart, Inc. (1900). Annual report. Phoenix, AZ: The Company. PetSmart, Inc. (2011). The company overview. Retrieved from: http://phx.corporate- ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=93506&p=irol-companyoverview Porter, M. L. (n.d.). Petsmart, Inc. (Petsmart, Inc.) Read More