Waivers are referred to as SOME evidence in the laws of contracts and tort. It is considered a "second contract" entered into between parties (ie: shave my matted dog = no liability). However, there is a "primary contract" between patron and business owner (you are responsible for my dog while he is in your care). So your waiver may exculpate you in contract law but you can still be liable for negligence that occurred in your care - regardless of waiver as you could be negligent for the basic grooming procedure that has NOTHING TO DO WITH SHAVING. The dog being in YOUR CARE can be considered mere grounds for possible liability. Basically, don't throw in the word "any and all responsibility" if it cannot be factually legal.
Negligence law: the waiver is only SOME evidence, persuasive evidence but does not remove liability completely. You are implying that the owner, as described above, was possibly negligent. Doesn't matter. Contributory negligence only reduces possible compensation by 25%. You are still liable for the 75%. Does not matter that the owner brought the dog home and did not seek attention for 4 days. If every person who ever became sick/injured etc had to seek attention RIGHT AWAY as you imply, there would be NO POINT in the law of negligence.gnsgroomer wrote: ↑Dec 5th, 2010 9:44 am"Although this owner signed our waiver, and and allowed the puppy to scratch his ears and suffer (as described above) for 4 days before seeking medical attention, I have offered to pay the medical bills, IF the pets’ veterinarian would confirm that our salon was responsible for negligence or injury in any way."
Lastly, while I commend your poor stylist for coming online to try to defend one self, I think it is poor taste to attack a dog owner behind a waiver argument (which I already commented was weak at best). I would stay off the boards. Felt it necessary to respond as you clearly show no signs of responsibility for POSSIBLE harm that may be caused. You say sorry but you really mean "you better not sue me."