Asked to put a price tag on their pets, most owners would call them priceless.
Courts usually don't agree because the law doesn't allow them to. In fact, a pet owner typically can't recover much more than out-of-pocket expenses when an animal is injured or killed due to someone's negligence. Current practice is to value pets at what they would cost to replace, the way insurers put a price on used cars.
In 2002, for example, a Massachusetts appeals court rejected a lawsuit in which a couple sought to recover for emotional distress and loss of companionship after a neighbor's dogs broke into their backyard and killed their seven sheep.
There was ample evidence that the "plaintiffs loved their sheep like a parent would love a child, and went so far as to throw birthday parties for them," the ruling noted, and that the defendants were to blame for letting their dogs loose. Even so, the court held that companionship claims were reserved for the loss of humans. It upheld a lower-court decision awarding the couple $1. (The couple had decided not to pursue actual damages to make a point.)
On the other hand, consider these cases:
- In 2002, an Oregon jury awarded $136,000 to a family that lost four dogs to a neighbor they alleged had poisoned them because he was fed up with their barking.
- In a civil suit that went to arbitration in Washington state in 2008, three men were ordered to pay $30,000 after killing a Chihuahua named Tia. The men had been drinking, and one was asleep in a car when Tia, barking in her backyard, apparently awakened him. He shot her dead.
- In 2007, Chicago settled with resident Calvin Hale after a police officer who ran through his property in pursuit of a suspect shot and killed his 10-year-old Akita, which Hale had raised since puppyhood. He received $27,500.
A movement to recognize the intangible value of pets is emerging across the country, one that cheers animal-rights groups but could ultimately mean higher prices for homeowners insurance, veterinary bills and even leashes and pet food.
More from MSN
Half would risk their lives for a pet
The idea that animals have additional, intrinsic value gained momentum nearly a decade ago after the case of a 12-year-old Shih Tzu named T-Bo. He was let out to do his business and, while in his own backyard, was fatally attacked by a larger dog roaming the neighborhood.T-Bo's owner was Steve Cohen, then a Tennessee state senator, who discovered he could recover only "actual damages," meaning the dog's market value. Cohen's experience motivated him to push his colleagues to pass a state law that now allows up to $5,000 in "noneconomic" damages when someone's negligence leads to a pet's death, with certain exceptions, including one for veterinarians.
The nonprofit Animal Legal Defense Fund wants more states to adopt laws like Tennessee's. It also promotes the study of animal law, now part of the curriculum in nearly 100 American Bar Association-accredited law schools, an eightfold increase over the past decade.
The animal defense fund also files friend-of-the-court briefs to advance the idea that animals hold a special place in society. It cites studies showing that:
- 45% of dog owners take their dogs on vacation.
- More than half of "companion animal" owners would prefer a dog or a cat to a human if they were stranded on a deserted island.
- 50% would be "very likely" to risk their lives to save their companion animals.
Lawsuits are long shots
After the largest pet food recall in U.S. history, lawyers looked into emotional-distress damages in behalf of thousands of owners whose pets had become sick or died as a result of eating melamine-tainted food in 2007."We thoroughly researched the law in all 50 states and the territories, and the pet food manufacturers were very well aware that in the U.S., the vast majority of states simply did not provide for the right to collect for emotional-distress damages, except when the act by the defendant was intentional," recounted Stuart Davidson of Boca Raton, Fla., one of the plaintiffs' lead attorneys.
It's not yet clear how many people will participate in a recent $24 million class-action settlement over the melamine cases. Those who do can receive payment to replace their animals at fair market value, to recoup the costs of veterinary bills, even to get back the cost of the tainted food -- but not for distress.
Video: Ways to pinch pennies on pet expenses
A lone pet owner is even more likely to find recovering emotional-distress damages an uphill battle, and the owner may have trouble finding a lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency basis.
If your pet is killed as a result of someone's negligence -- run over in your driveway, perhaps, or mauled by an unleashed animal -- you're more likely to find success seeking an insurance claim than suing.
Even so, the ground is shifting. Some courts now will entertain noneconomic claims in connection with an injured or slain animal, depending on the facts and applicable laws. Lawyers are seeing more claims seeking redress for emotional distress, and more plaintiffs are finding representation by attorneys. Illinois has recently passed a law allowing punitive damages to be levied in a pet's death, and more states are starting to consider legislation like Tennessee's to increase recovery beyond an animal's "replacement" or "market" value.
Continued: Is your vet a doctor or a friend?
Rate this Article
High