Jurors reached a verdict Wednesday in the trial of a lawsuit brought by the father of a 10-year-old boy who died after contracting an infectious disease from a pet rat purchased at Petco.

The jury began deliberating Wednesday morning and informed Judge Eddie Sturgeon by day’s end that it had reached a decision. The verdict will be read Thursday.

In closing arguments Tuesday, an attorney for plaintiff Andrew Pankey said he should be awarded $20 million for the loss of his son, Aidan, who died June 12, 2013, just two weeks after his grandmother bought the pet rat from a Petco store in Carmel Mountain Ranch.

Petco’s lawyer countered that the company does everything it can to prevent “rat-bite fever” and warns consumers of the rare condition when they buy a pet rat.

John H. Gomez, an attorney for the plaintiff, told the jury that Petco knows the rats it sells are likely to carry “rat-bite fever” and burying information about RBF on the back of a companion animal card. Gomez said there was no way to predict if a consumer was going to get an infected rat from Petco, which he said could have tested each rat before sale or stopped selling the rodents altogether.

Gomez also claimed Petco hid its data on testing rats for RBF from the federal government. He told the jury that Petco makes millions of dollars from rat sales and doesn’t want the federal government to tell it to stop.

Petco attorney Kimberly Oberrecht told the jury that Petco was a leader in developing a test to see if a rat carried RBF.

She said there was no way to determine what percentage of rats have the disease and there is no way to stop it.

“They (Petco) warn about it because they know they can’t get rid of it,” Oberrecht told the jury. “It’s still very rare.”

She said there was no evidence to support Gomez’s contention that there have been 200 separate claims filed with Petco about people contracting RBF.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pet rats are fine to be in a home as long as they are handled safely.

Consumers are not supposed to put a rat in their face or share food with a rat, the Petco attorney said.

She said the plaintiff had not proven there is a substantial risk of getting RBF by purchasing a pet rat and scoffed at the $20 million in damages suggested by Gomez, saying the plaintiff should not get even $1 million.

The Petco attorney said Andrew Pankey wasn’t there for Aidan’s birth and the father wasn’t that involved in the child’s life.

Barney’s Pets, which supplied the rat in question to Petco, is also named as a defendant.

–City News Service

>> Subscribe to Times of San Diego’s free daily email newsletter! Click here