Search:

Latest News and Articles

 

Facebook em Portugues

Quer ler os artigos semanais? Se inscreva aqui

Facebook in English

To be updated and receive our weekly articles please press "LIKE" in our page in the Facebook:

אתר בעברית

לדברי עברית! אנו עושים מאמצים רבים למלא את התוכן גם בשפה העברית:

Voleh in Jerusalem

We will be in Jerusalem again. Our next schedule: Sunday , April 29th.

Is Your Dog Dying? A True Case from the Small Claims Court

Dr. Jacob (plaintiff), a veterinarian, sued Mr. Alon (defendant) for 5,500 shekels, claiming that he cared for the defendant’s dog in April 2010. There is no dispute that on April 3, 2010, one of the plaintiff’s staff began to care for the dog of the defendant, who was in critical condition. The defendant was told that he would have to take the dog to the clinic and the care would cost over 2,500 shekels. The defendant signed a document with the estimate, and also added not to spare any care to save the dog’s life despite the cost. The dog’s condition deteriorated; the staff doctor asked the defendant several times how he should proceed with the care.

The plaintiff stated without the defendant’s consent it is impossible to administer medication or to proceed with euthanasia. Because of the lack of response of the defendant and his family, the plaintiff was compelled to care for the dog for four (4) days until the dog died.

The defendant and his family claimed that the dog was very dear to them; therefore they didn’t have the courage to consent to euthanasia. The defendant agreed that he has to pay a certain amount to the plaintiff, but the sides could not reach an agreement.

The Honorable Judge Mr. Harvey Grubbs, of Kfar Saba Small Claims Court, ruled on September 15, 2010 as follows:

There is no doubt that the defendant agreed on the sum of 2,500 shekels.

The Judge pointed out that because there were no clear instructions on the care of the dog beyond the sum of 2,500 shekels, the plaintiff had no other choice but to treat the dog. He also stated that the clinic was in close proximity to the defendant’s residence, therefore there was no excuse for not coming in to settle the matter.

The Honorable Judge ruled that because there was no mutual agreement about the sum of 4,500 shekels (which the plaintiff was then asking for), the plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable amount of 1,000 shekels over and beyond the agreed sum of 2,500 shekels. Therefore the defendant must pay the plaintiff 3,500 shekels and in addition another 350 shekels for court expenses.
 

Sincerely,
 

Tzvi Szajnbrum, Attorney at Law

Home PageEmailS. Levy Law Office Copyright © 2009-2011 Tzvi Szajnbrum
Hosted by Fresh-Web.co.il • Site Manager/English Content Editor: Tehillah Hessler