Ironbridge Animal Hospital v. Bradley

Chesterfield County Circuit Court

Ironbridge Animal Hospital v. Bradley

29 Va. Cir. 57, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 98

CourtChesterfield County Circuit Court

DecidedAugust 12, 1992

DocketCase No. CL91-1543

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Va. Cir. 57 (Ironbridge Animal Hospital v. Bradley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Chesterfield County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ironbridge Animal Hospital v. Bradley, 29 Va. Cir. 57, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 98 (Va. Super. Ct. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge William R. Shelton

The parties and counsel appeared on April 19, 1992, for a trial on the above-referenced matter. Upon the conclusion of the evidence, the Court took the issues under advisement.

The evidence which was presented shows that the defendant’s pet was lost for a period of time around March 8, 1991. That during this time, the animal was struck by an automobile or somehow suffered injuries requiring medical treatment. The dog was brought to the plaintiff’s animal hospital and was treated for its injuries, fed, and sheltered. On March 21, 1991, the animal’s owner, the defendant herein, was identified, and the dog was picked up from Chesterfield Animal Control. The defendant was billed for the medical treatment received by his pet but has refused to pay.

The law will impose a promise to pay to prevent one from being unjustly enriched at another’s expense. Kern v. Freed Co., 224 Va. 678, 680 (1983). This is an equitable principal which creates an implied or quasi-contract. Id. In the case at bar, the plaintiff rendered medical treatment to the pet of the defendant. The defendant has acknowledged ownership of the animal and has reclaimed the animal. To now permit the defendant to deny liability for the medical expenses incurred in treating the animal would be unjust. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $394.44 plus costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge William R. Shelton

The parties and counsel appeared on April 19, 1992, for a trial on the above-referenced matter. Upon the conclusion of the evidence, the Court took the issues under advisement.

The evidence which was presented shows that the defendant’s pet was lost for a period of time around March 8, 1991. That during this time, the animal was struck by an automobile or somehow suffered injuries requiring medical treatment. The dog was brought to the plaintiff’s animal hospital and was treated for its injuries, fed, and sheltered. On March 21, 1991, the animal’s owner, the defendant herein, was identified, and the dog was picked up from Chesterfield Animal Control. The defendant was billed for the medical treatment received by his pet but has refused to pay.

The law will impose a promise to pay to prevent one from being unjustly enriched at another’s expense. Kern v. Freed Co., 224 Va. 678, 680 (1983). This is an equitable principal which creates an implied or quasi-contract. Id. In the case at bar, the plaintiff rendered medical treatment to the pet of the defendant. The defendant has acknowledged ownership of the animal and has reclaimed the animal. To now permit the defendant to deny liability for the medical expenses incurred in treating the animal would be unjust. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $394.44 plus costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Va. Cir. 57, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ironbridge-animal-hospital-v-bradley-vaccchesterfiel-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack