In recent days, Ms. Chang Sha Zheng, who complained to the newspaper reporter, said that her dog, Fat Tiger, had been sent to Oneone pet park for foster care, but that it had died on 1 July, “the staff member's negligence delayed the rescue of the pet”.
On 14 July, a journalist from the Triple Metropolitan newspaper noted that the pet park had been rehabilitated in a statement about the incident. However, there are still many doubts about the death of the fat tiger. What are the long-standing industry loopholes behind pet foster care?
We've been monitoring damage for days, and we've got a problem with the treatment.
According to Ms. Tsang's description, on 25 June she sent the fat tiger to Oneone pet park for foster care, “On 1 July, at 1855 hours, the staff of the park called and said that the fat tiger was convulsing, 20 minutes after they found the anomaly”.
Ms. Tsang immediately requested that she be taken to hospital and videotaped to make it easier for her familiar pet doctor to know about the situation and take first aid measures. “No one of the three persons present at that time was free to send me a video, and then I went back to the field surveillance and found that at 1853, the fat tiger had already spitted out his tongue in his limbs, presumably dead and afraid to do so.”
In response, the park staff told the journalists that they were busy saving the fat tiger and contacting the doctor, “We contacted our chief at first and then the dog owner through him”.
According to the head of the park, “it's usually me who took the pet to the hospital, but I wasn't there that day”. She admitted that it was true that the staff did not contact the hospital at the first time, “following up on the renovation, we asked the staff to recite these hospital messages to facilitate emergency response”.
After that, Ms. Zun asked to see the surveillance video of the Fat Tiger foster cage. “Just by chance, 25 days of foster care and 26 days of surveillance are broken, say it was a thunder strike and no repairs were made.” In addition, she found that fat tiger foster care was the most distant side of the cage from the air conditioner and that “the water bowl in the cage was dry, and there were traces and blood stains on the floor and on the iron door of the cage”.
No explanation from the gardener. The care is unknown.
Ms. Tsang did not recognize the cause of death given by the gardener. “The manager said it might have been because we had visited the fat tiger in the afternoon and did not take him away, and the acid flow of the pet's too excited to choke to death in the nasal cavity.” After that, she consulted a number of pet doctors and received “no such possibility”.
“It's normal for fat tigers to return to foster care at more than 1 p.m., and pet park says it's not the same at 3.30 p.m. when they visit dog nests. How can it be because we're too excited to see them?” Ms. Zun argued that the fact that the park was not seen until about 18 p.m., when the fat tiger was fed led him to miss his best time.
As a result of the surveillance damage, the dog house was visited on the same day. One of the park ' s employees admitted that after the scheduled tour at 3.30 p.m., no one had visited the site until 6:30 p.m.
“But we did not increase the video rate after the surveillance was broken, which was our responsibility, and the next day we changed the staff to an hour to a tour.” The director said.
No agreement on the amount of compensation to be paid. The words.
In the end, Ms. Tsang finally offered $20,000 in compensation. “It has been more than three years since the fat tigers were raised, and they were donated to the Petty Protection Association on the spot.” Ms. Tsun also requested that the shopkeeper disclose the matter on social platforms, acknowledge errors and determine corrective measures.
There is currently no agreement between the parties on the amount of compensation and the statement of apology.
The responsible officials stated that on the night of the incident, the entire staff had bowed to apologize on the spot and that “after the incident, online public opinion had an impact on the operation”. Asked if there would be a public apology for the follow-up, the gardener indicated that he needed to enquire about the law.
It is noteworthy that, on 8 July, Paradise issued a statement “On the Fat Tiger Incident” in some of its microclinics, in which it referred to a number of corrective measures, including intensive training in emergency disposal and a re-examination of the park monitoring system.
Lack of uniform criteria for the pet industry, with almost zero entry threshold
“I see that none of the pet park's main group, Chang Shawan Wang Pet Services Ltd., has participated in social security, and I suspect that pet park has hired less professional staff to reduce costs.”
In response, staff members stated that there were indeed no mandatory requirements for recruitment, but that there was an urgent need for pet care and familiarity with pets, “as I myself had been a trainer in the pet industry for more than five years, and medical assistance had been in the industry for two years, and whether professional skills were required to look to the boss”.
Journalists saw a job announcement in the Oneone pet park account, in which the foster housekeeper ' s position required the preference of dog-loving, caring, responsible and clean-up experience, taking care of the dog ' s day-to-day day-to-day life and cleaning the canine house. Similar requirements exist for front-office passenger uniforms, but neither position mentions the expertise associated with pet medicine.
Counsel: In judicial practice, compensation for the death of a pet has exceeded the “market price compensation” and the client claims $20,000 compensation or space for support.
At present, the pet economy is developing rapidly, but disputes about pet foster care are not rare, reflecting the lack of industry standards and regulatory backwardness.
Mr. Wang Auhua, Deputy Director of Hunan and the Attorney-General's Office, told journalists that the current legal provisions relating to “pet foster care” were mainly four articles: pet foster care was essentially a paid custody contract. According to article 897 of the Civil Code, the custodian shall be liable for damage and loss caused by the improper custody of the custodian during the period of custody. At the same time, the failure of a foster care institution to provide a safe environment (e.g., if the lack of air conditioning causes heat), failure to provide timely medical treatment or gross negligence constitutes a violation of the right to life and health of a pet and incurs responsibility for violations (article 1165 of the Civil Code). Article 1198 of the Civil Code provides that, as a place of operation, foster care institutions are subject to reasonable security obligations, including environmental monitoring, emergency care, etc. In addition, articles 28 and 36 of the regulations governing dogs in Changsha city stipulate that foster care units for dogs must be equipped and put in place a preventive, safety and health system.
Counsel for Wang Zuhua stated that the current judicial practice of compensation for pet deaths had exceeded the single standard of “market price compensation”, usually consisting of two parts. Part of the loss of direct property is subject to evaluation, such as purchase fees (vaccinating, birth control, depreciation of supplies); medical expenses for rescue (if any), such as reasonable medical treatment; foster care, burial, identification costs (mortem, blood stain, etc.). The second part consists of moral damages: moral damages for a particular object of personal significance (pets), with discretionary compensation taking into account the years of breeding, the degree of emotional dependence, the size of the operator ' s fault and the local economic level.
In response to the reasonableness of Ms. Wang's claim, counsel argues that his claim for $20,000 for compensation (including moral damages) is supported by “the requirement of `personal significance particulars' for long-term breeding to develop emotional dependency; gross negligence on the part of the operator who appears to have failed to operate air conditioning and timely medical treatment; and possible evidentiary impediment and increased liability on the part of monitoring damage and refusal to provide a record”.
According to Wang Yuhua, legal justice does not differ from species to species. This case is not only about the life of a firewood dog, but also a reaffirmation of the standards of responsibility of the pet industry — the weight of this trust that the law must respond to when business acts carry emotional burdens.