Due to a Low-Quality Toy, a Pet Required Surgery: Can the Seller Be Forced to Pay for the Treatment

When purchasing toys, treats, or other products for pets, owners typically expect these items to be safe. However, a simple purchase can sometimes lead to expensive veterinary treatment, raising the question: can the incurred expenses be recovered from the product’s manufacturer or supplier? While the law allows for this possibility, court practice indicates that merely demonstrating a deterioration in an animal’s health is insufficient. It is essential to prove that the harm was specifically caused by a product defect. This type of dispute was recently considered by the Slobidsky District Court of Kharkiv.

The owner of a Shih Tzu dog sought to recover UAH 9,718 for the animal’s treatment costs and UAH 5,000 for emotional distress from the defendant. According to the owner, a bone-shaped toy purchased at a supermarket broke into small pieces, which the dog swallowed, necessitating urgent surgical intervention.

The court dismissed the claim. While acknowledging that the dog’s treatment and the plaintiff’s expenses were substantiated, the court noted that this was insufficient to impose civil liability on the defendant. The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a product defect and the causal link between this defect and the harm caused to the animal’s health.

Case Circumstances

The court established that on 19 December 2025, the plaintiff purchased a "Bone" dog toy from a supermarket for UAH 33. Upon returning home, he gave it to his Shih Tzu. After some time, the owner observed that the toy had broken into small pieces; he removed some from the animal’s mouth, assuming the dog had swallowed the rest.

That same evening, the dog became lethargic and refused to eat. During an examination at the veterinary clinic, foreign objects were discovered in the animal’s gastrointestinal tract, leading to an endoscopic surgical procedure. The total treatment cost amounted to UAH 9,718.

Following the incident, the owner contacted the seller, who identified an LLC as the toy’s supplier. Subsequently, the plaintiff sent a demand to the company for voluntary compensation of damages, but the letter was returned undelivered. Thereafter, he initiated a lawsuit seeking compensation for material and emotional damages.

Court’s Position

The court reiterated that, according to the Law of Ukraine "On Liability for Damage Caused by a Defect in Products," the injured party must prove three mandatory circumstances: the existence of damage, the presence of a product defect, and the causal link between the defect and the damage caused.

In this instance, the court acknowledged that the dog’s treatment and the plaintiff’s incurred expenses were confirmed, but deemed this insufficient to impose civil liability on the defendant.

The court highlighted that the fiscal receipt only confirmed the product’s sale but did not contain information about the buyer. Furthermore, the case materials lacked other appropriate and admissible evidence that would collectively confirm the plaintiff had purchased this specific toy.

Moreover, veterinary documents only confirmed the presence of foreign pink-coloured objects in the dog’s stomach and the treatment performed, but provided no information about their origin, composition, or characteristics. They also did not allow these objects to be identified as parts of the "Bone" toy referenced by the plaintiff. No expert examination or other evidence supporting such identification was presented to the court.

The plaintiff also failed to provide the toy itself or its remnants to the court. As the court noted, this made it impossible to examine its physical condition, manufacturing material, nature of damage, and to ascertain the presence or absence of a manufacturing defect.

Reasons for the Claim’s Dismissal

The court concluded that the evidence provided was insufficient to establish all elements of civil liability.

In the court’s opinion, the plaintiff failed to prove that the purchased toy was defective, nor did he confirm the causal link between its use and the harm caused to the dog’s health. Veterinary documents merely confirmed the presence of foreign objects in the animal’s stomach but did not allow for establishing their origin from the disputed toy. Concurrently, the absence of the toy or its fragments precluded verification of claims regarding a manufacturing defect.

The court specifically emphasised in case 641/3852/26 that the mere fact of surgery and incurred treatment costs is not sufficient grounds for satisfying the claim. To impose civil liability, it is necessary to prove that the damage occurred specifically due to a product defect for which the defendant is responsible. In this case, the court did not receive such evidence.

Since the court did not establish the grounds prescribed by law to impose civil liability on the defendant, it also dismissed the claim for compensation of emotional damages, which was derivative of the claim for material damages.

As a result, the Slobidsky District Court of Kharkiv fully dismissed the claim for recovery of UAH 9,718 in material damages and UAH 5,000 in emotional damages. The court fee was reimbursed at the state’s expense, as the plaintiff was exempted from its payment as a consumer.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.