On May 27, 2013, plaintiffs’ decedent, Aidan Pankey, 10, a student, accompanied his grandmother to a Petco pet store, in Carmel Mountain Ranch, and picked out a male rat. Aidan named the rodent Alex. About two weeks later, Aidan became ill with flu-like symptoms. He was subsequently taken to a doctor, who told his family that Aidan should rest, drink plenty of liquids, and return in a few days, if his symptoms did not improve. When his symptoms worsened the next night, Aidan’s family called paramedics at a little before midnight on June 11, 2013, and Aidan was taken to Rady Children’s Hospital – San Diego. About an hour later, Aidan died. An autopsy later revealed that Aidan died of an infection caused by Streptobacillus moniliformis, also known as rat-bite fever. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Streptobacillus moniliformis is part of the normal respiratory flora of rodents and can be transmitted from animals to humans through bites or scratches, or just by handling a rodent that carries it. Rats that have this type of bacterium do not show any outward signs of disease or infection. The CDC also states that pet rats are fine to be in a home, as long as they are handled safely. Aidan’s parents, Andrew Pankey and Vanessa Sauer, acting individually and on behalf of Aidan’s estate, sued Petco Animal Supplies Inc. and the rat supplier for Petco, Barney’s Pets Inc. Aidan’s parents brought products liability claims against the defendants, alleging that Petco failed to warn about the rat and that Barney’s Pets defectively “manufactured” the rat. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the rats at Barney’s Pets had tested positive for the Streptobacillus moniliformis bacteria just a few weeks before Aidan’s death and that Petco knew that its rats were likely to carry the bacteria, but hid the information on the back of a companion animal card. Counsel also contended that Petco knew that some people, including its own employees, had gotten sick after handling rodents sold in its stores, but that Petco did not do enough to warn of the hidden danger. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that since there was no way to predict if a consumer was going to get an infected rat from Petco, Petco was negligent for either failing to test each rat before each sale or for not stopping the sale of the rodents altogether. Defense counsel contended that there is no standard in the industry to test every single rat, as there would be false negatives due to rats being able to pick up the bacteria from another infected rat, and that the tests are not perfect. Counsel also contended that Streptobacillus moniliformis is natural to rats. Counsel further asserted that there was no way to determine what percentage of rats have Streptobacillus moniliformis and that there isn’t any way to stop the disease. In addition, defense counsel argued that it is extremely rare to get rat-bite fever and even rarer to die from it. Specifically, counsel noted that for the past 13 years, Petco has sold approximately 5 million rats and of those, there were 45 unverified claims of rat-bite fever. (Rat-bite fever is not reportable to the CDC due to the low incident rates.) Defense counsel further argued that there was no evidence that Aidan was bitten by his pet rat, Alex, as Aidan already had another rat as a pet. Thus, Petco’s counsel argued that Petco did all it could to warn customers about rate-bite fever by posting warnings about Streptobacillus moniliformis on the animal habitats in the stores and providing information at the time of purchase about how to properly handle rats so as to avoid getting sick. Counsel also argued that Petco was a leader in developing a test to see if a rat carried Streptobacillus moniliformis. Petco’s warnings expert opined that what Petco did to warn customers was within the standards for products, as determined by the American National Standards Institute, and was over and above what a consumer could expect. Defense counsel noted that, specifically, customers had to sign on the front of a form stating that they had read the warnings/caution statements on the back of the form and that Petco employees point out all of the caution statements on the back of the form when they sell rats., Aidan developed rat-bite fever (a Streptobacillus moniliformis infection) and was taken to Rady Children’s Hospital – San Diego. He ultimately died early the next morning, on June 12, 2013. Aidan was 10 years old. Aidan’s parents sought recovery of wrongful death damages due to the loss of their son. At the time of trial, only Aidan’s father, Andrew Pankey, continued as a plaintiff. Defense counsel argued that plaintiff’s counsel had not proven that there was a substantial risk of getting rat-bite fever by purchasing a pet rat and that Aidan’s father should not get $1 million. The defense’s pediatric infectious disease expert, who wrote two journal articles about rat-bite fever that the CDC has cited, testified about rat-bite fever and how unusual it was for Aidan to die from the condition. Defense counsel noted that no one was critical of the doctors that treated Aidan or of Aidan’s family for seeking medical care for their son, as it was thought Aidan had the flu and he was brought for medical care. Aidan also had no actual rat bites, and it was thought that the exposure to feces or saliva without proper hygiene is what exposed Aidan to Streptobacillus moniliformis. Aidan also did not have a rash, which again shows how difficult rat-bite fever is to diagnose. Thus, defense counsel argued that there were issues with the safe handling of Alex, the pet rat, as one is supposed to wash one’s hands after handling them, and not put them near one’s face and kiss them, which the defense accused Aidan of doing. Defense counsel also noted that Aidan carried his rats on his shoulder, shared food with them and put them on his head when he showered. Thus, counsel questioned whether Aidan’s parents were diligent about whether Aidan was staying clean.