5 ms·

But being Amreica, someone has to be to blame. It can't just be an unlucky accident of circumstances.

by nicky0 8y ago

gnicholas 8y ago
The author wrote the post because of the company's post-accident behavior, not because there was an accident. His point is that Wag isn't sharing information about what happened, or what parties are involved. Without this information, the author is completely helpless. And the only way to get anything from Wag is to pre-emptively forego all recourse, including sharing his story. This is the primary focus — not on the mere fact of the accident.
- nicky0 8y ago
  Can't object to that. My point was more in response to the following sub-discussion which had become a blame-assigning process.
  - e40 8y ago
    That's what is so fishy about all of this. And, my comment was immediately downvoted, then got upvoted a bunch.
askmike 8y ago
I don't agree: I'm not from the US and generally think everyone is over reacting with constantly (threatening) to sue everyone else. But here the problem here isn't that the dog died, it's how Wag has handled the problem afterwards, and how their (poor) communication suggests that they didn't really do their due diligence in vetting the walkers. EDIT: a similar thing happened in my country (the Netherlands) where an Uber driver hit (and killed) a young woman after driving around in circles (a technique used to get more clients apparently, instead of parking somewhere), and Uber immediately pulled the "he is not an Uber employee and he wasn't with an Uber customer when it happened, so it's not our fault card". which resulted in public outrage[1]. They could have just send some flowers to the family, now they got a PR crisis instead. [1]: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/een-uber-chauffeur-rijdt-een-jonge-vrouw-dood-en-uber-stellen-haar-ouders-vast-doet-daar-helemaal-niets-mee-~bedbe09c/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/een-uber-chauff...
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  I think the incentives in play force companies to act callous. It seems to me that companies are wary to act with empathy lest they get sued and the court takes it as an admission of guilt (or at least evidence of culpability, or something the jury will pay attention to). It's like that old advice where you should never say "sorry" after a car accident (as a Brit, apologising is a natural impulse even when not at fault) because it can be taken as an admission of fault.
  - dagw 8y ago
    as a Brit, apologising is a natural impulse even when not at fault Someone explained it to me as when an American says "sorry" they mean "I'm sorry I did a bad thing to you" and when a Brit says sorry they mean "I'm sorry a bad thing happened to you". Which also explains the not uncommon American response to "sorry" of "Why? It wasn't your fault".
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      Yeah that's it, though many Brits also share that reaction.
    - firmgently 8y ago
      If I do something bad to a person I say sorry and it means "I'm sorry I did something bad to you". If something that's out of my control happens to someone I might say sorry and mean "I'm sorry a bad thing happened to you". I'm British and find that sometimes I think similarly to another person who is British, and at other times I think differently to another person who is British. It's wild.
  - idontpost 8y ago
    This is a non-issue in this case. As I stated, liability in the case of harm to pets is extremely limited by law. Pets are treated as simple property by US law and the liability is strictly limited to the cost of replacement. There has never been a civil judgement in the US beyond that. There are CRIMINAL issues involving treatment of animals, but none of those are applicable here. This is pure incompetence by WAG's legal and customer-service departments.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Someone does have to be to blame even in the case of an accident. When you drive a multi ton machine at high rates of speed you are accountable for it. Likewise when you take money for a service you are accountable for not letting their dog run into the road which is usually pretty easy for an animal on a leash. What did wag do wrong that we know? The walker wasn't the person on the profile. They are withholding information regarding the incident. They tried to force the victim to agree to be legally silenced in order to pay for direct costs incurred. This is 1000 times worse than paying nothing.

But being Amreica, someone has to be to blame. It can't just be an unlucky accident of circumstances.

by nicky0 8y ago

But being Amreica, someone has to be to blame. It can't just be an unlucky accident of circumstances.

The author wrote the post because of the company's post-accident behavior, not because there was an accident. His point is that Wag isn't sharing information about what happened, or what parties are involved. Without this information, the author is completely helpless. And the only way to get anything from Wag is to pre-emptively forego all recourse, including sharing his story. This is the primary focus — not on the mere fact of the accident.

nicky0 8y ago
Can't object to that. My point was more in response to the following sub-discussion which had become a blame-assigning process.
- e40 8y ago
  That's what is so fishy about all of this. And, my comment was immediately downvoted, then got upvoted a bunch.

askmike 8y ago

I don't agree: I'm not from the US and generally think everyone is over reacting with constantly (threatening) to sue everyone else. But here the problem here isn't that the dog died, it's how Wag has handled the problem afterwards, and how their (poor) communication suggests that they didn't really do their due diligence in vetting the walkers. EDIT: a similar thing happened in my country (the Netherlands) where an Uber driver hit (and killed) a young woman after driving around in circles (a technique used to get more clients apparently, instead of parking somewhere), and Uber immediately pulled the "he is not an Uber employee and he wasn't with an Uber customer when it happened, so it's not our fault card". which resulted in public outrage[1]. They could have just send some flowers to the family, now they got a PR crisis instead. [1]: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/een-uber-chauffeur-rijdt-een-jonge-vrouw-dood-en-uber-stellen-haar-ouders-vast-doet-daar-helemaal-niets-mee-~bedbe09c/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/een-uber-chauff...

beaconstudios 8y ago
I think the incentives in play force companies to act callous. It seems to me that companies are wary to act with empathy lest they get sued and the court takes it as an admission of guilt (or at least evidence of culpability, or something the jury will pay attention to). It's like that old advice where you should never say "sorry" after a car accident (as a Brit, apologising is a natural impulse even when not at fault) because it can be taken as an admission of fault.
- dagw 8y ago
  as a Brit, apologising is a natural impulse even when not at fault Someone explained it to me as when an American says "sorry" they mean "I'm sorry I did a bad thing to you" and when a Brit says sorry they mean "I'm sorry a bad thing happened to you". Which also explains the not uncommon American response to "sorry" of "Why? It wasn't your fault".
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    Yeah that's it, though many Brits also share that reaction.
  - firmgently 8y ago
    If I do something bad to a person I say sorry and it means "I'm sorry I did something bad to you". If something that's out of my control happens to someone I might say sorry and mean "I'm sorry a bad thing happened to you". I'm British and find that sometimes I think similarly to another person who is British, and at other times I think differently to another person who is British. It's wild.
- idontpost 8y ago
  This is a non-issue in this case. As I stated, liability in the case of harm to pets is extremely limited by law. Pets are treated as simple property by US law and the liability is strictly limited to the cost of replacement. There has never been a civil judgement in the US beyond that. There are CRIMINAL issues involving treatment of animals, but none of those are applicable here. This is pure incompetence by WAG's legal and customer-service departments.

michaelmrose 8y ago

Someone does have to be to blame even in the case of an accident. When you drive a multi ton machine at high rates of speed you are accountable for it. Likewise when you take money for a service you are accountable for not letting their dog run into the road which is usually pretty easy for an animal on a leash. What did wag do wrong that we know? The walker wasn't the person on the profile. They are withholding information regarding the incident. They tried to force the victim to agree to be legally silenced in order to pay for direct costs incurred. This is 1000 times worse than paying nothing.