Is it? It seems like it's just acknowledging a objectively true reality. In the US getting sued for failed human medical intervention is common and costly. Courts (and juries I'm sure) don't look on animal lives with the same value as they do human lives. You might have a different value system, but the article isn't talking about your moral system, it's talking about objective reality.
But, like they said, it's talking about the legal reality and not the moral reality. I find it hard to see how that could be either factually or morally wrong.
