What
our pets mean to us 
Clearly, Americans love
our pets:
-
For example, 67% of
pet owners take their pets to the veterinarian more often than they see
their own physicians. (1999 American Animal Hospital Association's
national pet owner survey.)
-
In fact, 70% to 93%
of pet owners view their pets as family members. (Alan Beck &
Aaron Katcher, Between Pets and People – The Importance of Animal Companionship
40-45 (2d ed. 1996); Mary E. Thurston, The Lost History of the Canine Race
– Our 15,000-Year Love Affair With Dogs 275 (1996); Betty J. Carmack, The
Effect on Family Members and Functioning After the Death of a Pet, in PETS
AND THE FAMILY 149, 150 (Marvin B. Sussman ed., 1985).)
-
This sentiment is evidenced
by the 53% of pet owners who have taken time off work to care for a sick
pet; 52% who have cooked special meals for their pets; and 34% who talk
about their pets more than their children. (1999 American Animal
Hospital Association's national pet owner survey.)
|
Circumstances
that make injury or death actionable
The injury or death of a dog usually
is actionable under any one of the following circumstances (also see the
cases listed below in the section entitled Mental
Anguish):
- It was the result of negligence.
- It happened because the dog
was attacked by a dog that was not on a leash, in a city that has
a leash law.
- It resulted from intentional conduct.
(See Cruelty to Dogs.)
-
It happened at a pet-sitting establishment,
such as a place where dogs are boarded, which failed to provide the dog
with necessary and prompt veterinary care, nutrition, or shelter, or failed
to treat the dog kindly. (See California Civil Code sec. 1834: "A depository
of living animals shall provide the animals with necessary and prompt veterinary
care, nutrition, and shelter, and treat them kindly. Any depository
that fails to perform these duties may be liable for civil damages as provided
by law.")
- The cause of injury or death
was veterinary malpractice, such as the unwanted sterilization of
a dog. (See Veterinary Malpractice.)
|
Veterinary
bills
The owner
of an injured dog usually is entitled to recover at least the cost of
veterinary services, against the person who inflicted the injury, or
the owner of the dog that inflicted the injury. (Roos v. Loeser
(1919) 41 Cal.App. 783.) However, some courts have held that the dog's
owner ordinarily is permitted to recover no more than the dog's market
value. Furthermore, the killing or injuring of a dog may result in no
legal liability under certain circumstances; see Self-defense
when a dog attacks a person and
Defending
dogs and other animals.
To obtain the legal forms necessary to recover
veterinary bills, get What
To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed.
|
Cost
or market value of the dog
If the dog is killed, the owner will receive
either the market value of the dog before it died, or the amount it would
take to replace the dog, depending on the specific circumstances and the
law of the jurisdiction where the incident happened. The market value might
be higher than the replacement value because the dog might have won awards
or otherwise been a great value to the owner. The replacement cost might
be higher because the dog might have been old and relatively valueless
from a purely economic standpoint, while the cost of a new dog might be
high. All of these factors are discussed below.
Market
value
Ordinarily the proper measure of recovery
for the killing of a dog is the dog's market value at the time of its death.
In Dreyer v. Cyriacks 112 Cal.App. 279, 297 P. 35 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.,
Feb. 28, 1931), the owner of "Peter the Great," a dog who worked in the
motion picture industry, sued an individual who fired a weapon in the direction
of the dog owner's automobile following a quarrel. Not knowing that the
dog was in the vehicle, the man killed the dog. The court held that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the
ground that the verdict of $100,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000
in punitive damages was excessive. As to compensatory damages, the court
said that, although several witnesses estimated the value of the dog to
be from $150,000 to $200,000, in view of the other testimony showing the
amounts the dog had earned, it was obvious that the estimates fixed by
these witnesses were based entirely on fanciful speculation. Consequently,
held the court, the trial court was not bound to accept this testimony
and was more than justified in holding that the verdict was grossly excessive.
Observing that the cases cited by the dog
owner involved death or injury of a human being, the court stressed that
it was absurd to argue that, in fixing damages, the value of human lives
and the value of dogs were to be measured by the same standard:
- "With reference to the
question of the amount of the verdict, plaintiffs have cited us to
an array of cases from thirty states of the Union and from England
and Canada. But not one of them relates to the destruction of an animal.
They all concern the death of or injury to human beings, and it is
absurd to argue that in fixing damages the value of human lives and
the value of dogs are to be measured by the same standard. As declared
in section 491 of the Penal Code, "Dogs are personal property, and
their value is to be ascertained in the same manner as the value of
other property," but certainly the value of a human life is not to
be so determined. (112 Cal.App. 279, 284-285.)
In a dog owner's action to recover from a
motorist who struck the dog with his automobile and, allegedly to put it
out of its misery, then shot the dog, which was a 15-month-old purebred
Weimaraner registered female, the court, in Wells v. Brown, 97 Cal.
App. 2d 361, 217 P.2d 995 (4th Dist. 1950), affirming a verdict for the
dog owner, held that the $1,500 verdict was supported by the evidence.
The court pointed to the testimony of a witness that (1) he had considerable
experience with dogs and did a great deal of hunting with them; (2) the
Weimaraner, a German dog, was a new breed and was supposed to be an all-around
hunting dog; (3) he possessed one of these dogs and was acquainted with
the dog that was involved in this accident; (4) he was familiar with the
value of these dogs on the market today; (5) he would say that there were
about 9,000 tentative orders or applications on hand for this breed of
dog in the United States; (6) if an outsider wanted such a dog, he was
required to join the Weimaraner Club and abide by their rules and regulations
as to breeding them before such a dog would be sold; and (7) considering
the market value of this particular dog on the date it was killed, "that
dog would be worth from three to five thousand dollars." The court concluded
that, although there was evidence that this particular dog, when much younger,
cost its owner the sum of $300, this figure was not conclusive of its market
value at the time it was killed.
Where
the dog has no market value
Where dog has no market value, or market value
is not a true indication of value, the proper measure for the killing of
the dog is the dog's value to its owner.
Owner's
opinion of value
The dog owner's opinion testimony as to the
value of the dog is admissible.
Third
party's opinion of value
Opinion testimony as to the value of the dog,
by a witness other than the dog owner, is admissible. For example, a witness
testified that the dog owner's 15-month-old female pure-bred registered
Weimaraner, which was a new breed from Germany, "would be worth from three
to five thousand dollars." Wells v. Brown, 97 Cal. App. 2d 361,
217 P.2d 995 (4th Dist. 1950).
Purchase
price
Evidence of the price paid by the owner in
purchasing the dog is admissible on the issue of the dog's value.
Offer
to purchase
Evidence of an offer to purchase the dog received
by the dog owner is admissible on the question of the dog's value.
Dog
as a producer of income
Income attributable to the dog is admissible
on the question of the dog's value. For example, experts testified that
a performing dog could earn more than $100,000, and the court awarded $5,000
in compensatory damages. Mitchell v. Union Pac. R. Co., 188 F. Supp.
869 (S.D. Cal. 1960).
Dog's
characteristics, training and breeding
Evidence of the dog's characteristics, training,
or breeding is admissible on the question of the dog's value. In Mitchell
v. Union Pac. R. Co., 188 F. Supp. 869 (S.D. Cal. 1960), a dog named
"Pudsy" was being transported by railroad, and died from exposure to excessive
heat. The owner sued the railroad and testified that the value of the dog
exceeded $100,000. He also presented expert witnesses who testified that
the dog could earn in excess of $100,000. This figure was based on the
owner's claims that the dog could give answers of problems in addition,
subtraction, and division in any combination up to 20 by a number of barks.
The owner further testified that (1) the only prompting given to the dog
was his tone of voice, (2) the dog would bark the number of spots appearing
on a playing card without signal except being shown the card, (3) the dog
was six years old and had never been exhibited professionally but had been
shown at a number of charitable shows in Ireland, and (4) the dog was known
as the "wonder dog of Ireland." The owner was awarded $5,000 in compensatory
damages, which the court said was not excessive under the circumstances.
Awards
to the dog
Evidence concerning awards won by the dog
is admissible on the issue of the dog's value. |
Mental
anguish
In an action to recover for the killing of,
or an injury to, a dog, the owner may be entitled to recover compensation
for mental distress. Several states have statutes that establish the conditions
for recovery and the monetary limits. The circumstances under which such
compensation may be given can also be determined from the cases, such
as the following:
- Gonzales v. Personal Storage, Inc.
(1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 464 is not a dog case but it can be used under
some circumstances to recover damages for mental anguish. A self-storage
facility converted approximately $60,000 of a tenant's personal property.
The court ruled that the facility was liable for the severe emotional
distress the tenant suffered when she learned about the conversion.
The court's ruling was founded upon the law of conversion of personal
property. "[W]e conclude that notwithstanding further developments
in the law of negligence, damages for emotional distress growing out
of a defendant's conversion of personal property are recoverable."
(56 Cal.App.4th at p. 477.) If the defendant unlawfully had control
of the dog, then menal anguish damages are recoverable.
- In Knowles Animal Hospital, Inc.
v. Wills, 360 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1978), cert.
denied, 368 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1979), a dog suffered severe burns after
being placed on a heating pad at an animal hospital and left there
for a day and a half. The court affirmed a judgment against the animal
hospital that included a $1,000 award for the dog owner's mental suffering.
- In Johnson v. Wander, 592 So.
2d 1225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1992), a dog once again was
left on heating pads for a long period of time and suffered severe
burns. The court affirmed that the owner could recover compensation
for mental suffering at finding out about her dog's injury, and punitive
damages.
- In City of Garland v. White,
368 S.W.2d 12 (Tex. Civ. App. Eastland 1963), writ refused n.r.e.,
(Oct. 2, 1963), police shot the plaintiff's dog, a pedigreed, registered,
three-year-old male boxer. This incident caused the owner to become
nervous and frustrated; he felt worry, vexation, disappointment,
anger, and resentment. His teaching suffered and he missed time from
school. The court held that he could recover compensation for mental
pain and suffering.
- In Brousseau v. Rosenthal 443
N.Y.S.2d 285 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct., 1980) a kennel caused the death of
a dog, for a reason that was not reported in the court decision. Suffice
it to say, however, that a dog should never die in a kennel. The court
acknowledged the companionship and protection that the plaintiff lost
with the death of her companion of eight years.
- A dog died because it was left in a
hot van so, in Campbell v. Animal Quarantine Station 632 P.2d
1066 (Hawaii, 1981), the court was faced with whether the dog owner
had to witness the death, and whether Hawaii would recognize the element
of mental distress when determining the amount of compensation. The
court said that the owner did not have to witness the death, and the
mental distress was recoverable.
- A dead cat was discovered in the casket
of the owners' dog during the dog's funeral. The court ruled that
mental distress damages were recoverable. Corso v. Crawford Dog
and Cat Hospital, Inc. 415 N.Y.S.2d (182 N.Y.City Civ.Ct., 1979).
- The shooting of his dog probably would
entitle a dog owner to mental distress damages in Idaho, under Gill
v. Brown 695 P.2d 1276 (Idaho App., 1985) [the animal in that
case was a donkey but the principle is the same], and also in Wisconsin,
under Rabideau v. City of Racine 627 N.W.2d 795 (Wis. 2001)
[as long as the shooter was not a law enforcement officer properly
performing his duties, as it was in this case].
- Dumping dead dogs into a ditch and
pretending not to know what happened to them, after lawfully killing
the dogs, can result in mental distress damages. Katsaris v. Cook
225 Cal.Rptr. 531 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 1986).
- When police officers shoot dogs that
are roaming the streets and are aggressive, it is possible to recover
damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress if the officers
should have been able to control the dogs another way. Kautzman
v. McDonald 621 N.W.2d 871 (N.D. 2001).
- A tethered dog died because a garbage
disposal employee maliciously threw a garbage can at it, and the court
held that mental distress damages were awardable. LaPorte v. Associated
Independents, Inc. 163 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1964).
- When a city pound fails to follow its
(and the local law's) procedures for euthanizing a stray dog, and
it turns out that the dog was not stray but belonged to a owner that
cared for it, the city may be held liable for emotional distress damages.
Richardson v. Fairbanks North Star Borough 705 P.2d 454 (Alaska,
1985).
- In Tennessee, by statute (Tenn. Stats,
44-17-403), any negligence leading to the death of a dog on the dog
owner's property, or on the property of the caretaker of the dog,
or while the dog is in the custody of the caretaker, may result in
an award of additional damages up to $4,000 for "reasonably expected
society, companionship, love and affection of the pet."
Keep in mind, however, that mental
distress damages for the injury to or death of a dog are not awardable
in most states, and are not possible under a variety of circumstances.
Here are some examples:
- Altieri v. Nanavati
573 A.2d 359 (Conn. Super., 1990) involved unwanted sterilization
surgery on the plaintiff's dog. The court held that this was malpractice
on the part of the veterinarian but that mental distress damages would
not be awarded at trial.
- A dog died after
being subjected to extreme heat at a groomer's, but the court held
that mental distress damages are not recoverable in New Jersey. Harabes
v. Barkery, Inc. 791 A.2d 1142 (N.J.Super.L., 2001).
- The intentional
killing of a dog that terrorized the neighborhood, inflicted by a
Deputy Sheriff, would not support a claim of any kind. Ivey v.
Hamlin (Unpublished) 2002 WL 1254444 (Tenn.Ct.App.)(Not reproted
in S.W.3rd). Unpublished court opinions are instructive but not legally
binding.
- Adopting-out
a dog that was licensed but not wearing its tags would not lead to
recovery for anything. Lamare v. North Country Animal League
743 A.2d 598 (Vt. 1999).
- Burying a dog
in a mass grave, against the express wishes of its owner, would not
result in a claim for emotional distress. Langford v. Emergency
Pet Clinic 644 N.E.2d 1035 Ohio App. 8 Dist., 1994).
- A veterinarian
beat a dog to death because he was having difficulty getting it from
one part of the clinic to another, and yet the Pennsylvania court
held that emotional distress damages could not be recovered. Miller
v. Peraino 626 A.2d 637 (Pa.Super., 1993).
- When a kennel
owner's dog tore off the front leg and shoulder blade of a boarder's
dog, no damages were allowed for loss of the intrinsic value of the
victim-dog. Nichols v. Sukaro Kennels 555 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa,
1996).
- Seeing her dog
dismembered by an attacking dog did not entitle a dog owner to emotional
distress in Arizona because dogs are simply property. Roman v.
Carroll 621 P.2d 307 (Ariz.App., 1980). The same rule, in a very
similar case (involving two attacking dogs), is followed in Rhode
Island because a dog is not a "relative" and therefore the
emotional distress will not be compensated. Rowbotham v. Maher
658 A.2d 912 (R.I. 1995). Minnesota follows the same rule, that dogs
are property and therefore their owners cannot recover for emotional
distress. Soucek v. Banham 524 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. App. 1994).
The property rule is also used in Ohio to deny mental suffering damages.
Strawser v. Wright 610 N.E.2d 610 (Ohio App. 12 Dist., 1992).
It also is used for that purpose in Nebraska. Fackler v. Genetzky
595 N.W.2d 884 (Neb., 1999).
- Mental distress
damages are not recoverable in Texas for the death of a dog because
its value is limited to market value, if any, or some special or pecuniary
value to the owner that may be ascertained by reference to the dog's
usefulness or services. Zeid v. Pearce 953 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.App.-El
Paso, 1997).
- Dogs are considered
to be property as a result of statutes in the following states, and
therefore it is probable that mental distress damages would not be
awarded: Delaware 7 (Del.C. sec. 1708), Indiana (Ind. Stats. 15-5-10-1),
New Mexico (NM Stats. 77-1-1), Nevada (Nev. Stats. 193.021), Oklahoma
(21 Oak. Stats. Ann. 1717), Oregon (Or. Rev. Stats. 609.020),
- The market value
of a dog is all that can be awarded pursuant to a specific statute
in Maryland (Md. Courts & Jud. Proc. 11-110).
How
mental anguish is proved
In Campbell v. Animal Quarantine
Station, Division of Animal Industry, Dept. of Agriculture, State of
Hawaii, Bd. of Agriculture, 63 Haw. 557, 632 P.2d 1066 (1981), the
court, stating that a dog owner may recover for emotional distress caused
by an injury to or the death of the owner's dog, declared that the introduction
of medical testimony is not a prerequisite for the recovery of such
damages. Medical testimony, the court said, should be used as an indicator
of the degree of the mental distress suffered by the dog's owner, not
as a bar to recovery. Medical proof can be offered to assist in proving
the "seriousness" of the claim and the extent of recovery, the court
explained, but it should not be a requirement for the cause of action.
Once the trial court or the jury is satisfied that the distress is "serious,"
the court continued, the duration and symptoms of the distress affect
the amount of recovery.
To prove this and other aspects
of a claim involving injury or death of a dog, get a copy of
What
To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed.
|
Loss
of companionship
The owner's loss of a dog's companionship
often is an element of the dog's value. In Klein v. St. Louis Transit
Co., 117 Mo. App. 691, 93 S.W. 281 (1906), the court declared that,
where the dog owner prized his dog very highly, took pleasure in its company,
and was proud of the smart things the dog could do, the jury, in assessing
damages, might very well take into consideration the owner's loss of the
dog's company and the owner's deprivation of the amusement and pleasure
the dog afforded, as well as the dog's pecuniary value.
In Brousseau v. Rosenthal, 110 Misc.
2d 1054, 443 N.Y.S.2d 285 (City Civ. Ct. 1980), the court stated that loss
of companionship is an element of a dog's actual value, where recovery
is sought for the loss of the dog.
Note also that a number of states
have statutes that establish the conditions for recovery and the monetary
limits. You have to research the statutes of the state where the injury
happened. (See the Links page for websites
that contain legal materials, as well as tutorials for doing the research.)
Recovery for this item of damage is included in
What
To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed.
|
Sentimental
damages
Sentimental value of dog to owner is often
included in the owner's damages. For example, in LaPorte v. Associated
Independents, Inc., 163 So. 2d 267, 1 A.L.R.3d 992 (Fla. 1964), a dog
was killed and the owner sued for mental distress. The Supreme Court of
Florida rejected the lower court's assertion that it is improper to include
an allowance for sentimental value of the dog to its owner. The court said
that it could not accept the restriction of the damages recoverable for
the loss of a pet to its intrinsic value:
"Without indulging in a discussion
of the affinity between 'sentimental value' and 'mental suffering,'
the court feels that the affection of a master for his or her dog is
a very real thing and that the malicious destruction of the pet provides
an element of damage for which the owner should recover, irrespective
of the value of the animal because of its special training, such as
a Seeing Eye dog or a sheepdog."
In Jankoski v. Preiser Animal Hosp.,
Ltd., 157 Ill. App. 3d 818, 110 Ill. Dec. 53, 510 N.E.2d 1084 (1st
Dist. 1987), appeal denied, 117 Ill. 2d 544, 115 Ill. Dec. 400, 517 N.E.2d
1086 (1987), the court said that, under the concept of actual value to
the owner, in valuing a dog that has been killed, the court may include
some element of sentimental value in order to prevent limiting the plaintiff
to merely nominal damages. The court also said, however, that the owner
of an injured or dead dog has no independent cause of action for loss
of companionship.
As stated above, a number of
states have statutes that establish the conditions for recovery and
the monetary limits. You have to research the statutes of the state
where the injury happened. (See the Links
page for websites that contain legal materials, as well as tutorials
for doing the research.) Recovery for this item of damage is included
in What
To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed.
|
Punitive
damages
California Civil Code section 3340 provides:
For wrongful injuries to
animals being subjects of property, committed willfully or by gross
negligence, in disregard of humanity, exemplary damages may be given.
Courts have permitted punitive damage awards
under specific circumstances. The cases provide examples:
-
In LaPorte v. Associated Independents,
Inc., 163 So. 2d 267, 1 A.L.R.3d 992 (Fla. 1964), the court permitted
an award of punitive damages where the defendant was malicious and demonstrated
an extreme indifference to the dog owner's rights. A garbage collector's
threw the owner's empty garbage can at or toward a miniature dachshund
named Heidi. This happened after collecting the garbage. The court upheld
an award of punitive damages, finding it obvious that the conduct of the
collector, who laughed after throwing the garbage can, had been malicious
and had demonstrated an extreme indifference to the dog owner's rights.
-
In Levine v. Knowles, 228 So. 2d 308
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1969), the court said that, while punitive
damages were allowable where a veterinarian's negligent treatment led to
the death of the dog owner's dog, the amount awarded should bear some reasonable
relationship to the amount of compensatory damages, which the court implied
was to be determined in relation to the dog's value of approximately $100.
-
In an action by the owners of a dog that suffered
severe burns after being placed on a heating pad at an animal hospital
and left there for a day and a half, the court, in Knowles Animal Hospital,
Inc. v. Wills, 360 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1978), cert.
denied, 368 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1979), affirmed a judgment against the animal
hospital that included an award of $12,000 in punitive damages. The court
declared that, on the evidence, the jury could, and no doubt did, view
the neglectful conduct that resulted in the burn injury suffered by the
dog to have been of a character amounting to great indifference to the
property of the dog owners, such as to justify the jury's award.
-
In Johnson v. Wander, 592 So. 2d 1225
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1992), a dog owner's action to recover from
a veterinarian for injuries suffered by her dog Coco when, after being
spayed, it was left on heating pads for a long period of time and suffered
severe burns, the court held that a jury question existed as to the veterinarian's
liability for punitive damages and damages for the owner's mental suffering
at finding out about her dog's injury.
-
In a dog owner's action to recover from a
neighbor, who shot and killed eight of the owner's rat terriers, the court,
in Mendenhall v. Struck, 207 Iowa 1094, 224 N.W. 95 (1929), reversing
a "no-damage" judgment, stated that the owner had grounds to pray for both
actual and punitive damages. After killing one adult dog, the neighbor
entered the dog owner's house against his wishes, drove two adults and
five puppies out from the house, and shot and killed those dogs outside
the house. Malice, the court said, does not necessarily mean spite or hatred;
it means, the court continued, the doing of an actual wrong in itself without
just cause or excuse.
-
In a dog owner's action against a person who
maliciously poisoned five of the owner's dogs, killing three, the court,
in Heiligmann v. Rose, 81 Tex. 222, 16 S.W. 931 (1891),
held that a $75 judgment for the dog owner, not apportioned between actual
and exemplary damages, was supportable. When the evidence, as it did in
this case, justified a verdict for either actual or exemplary damages,
or both, the court said, it would not presume that the finding of the jury
was based on improper grounds.
-
In Wright v. Clark, 50 Vt. 130 (1877),
the plaintiff's dog was shot by the defendant when the dog pursued a fox
across the defendant's premises into a wooded area. The defendant testified
that he had intended to shoot the fox but accidentally shot the dog. The
trial judge properly allowed the jury to award punitive damages if it found
that the defendant acted purposely and recklessly, or without proper
regard for the rights of the plaintiff.
|
Comparative
fault and contributory negligence
The recovery by the owner of the injured dog
may be reduced by the degree to which he or she was at fault. For example,
if the attacking dog and the injured dog were running loose, the owner
of the injured dog might be regarded as being 50% to blame for the incident.
If the vet bill was $500, then the owner of the attacking dog would have
to pay only $250.
In states that still have the "contributory
negligence" doctrine, the owner of the attacking dog would have to pay
nothing. These states include Alabama, Maryland, District of Columbia,
North Carolina and Virginia.
To learn how the
doctrine of comparative fault will affect your claim, whether you are
the owner of the injured dog or the attacking dog, you should use the
Liability Wizard that is part of the interactive book,
What
To Do If Your Dog Is Injued Or Killed.
|
Dog's
pain and suffering
No court has held that a dog's pain and suffering
entitles the owner to receive a separate award of damages. However, note
that the owner might be entitled to compensation for mental suffering and
punitive damages under the same circumstances.
In Gluckman v. American Airlines, Inc.,
844 F. Supp. 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), related reference, 1994 WL 705324 (S.D.N.Y.
1994), opinion modified, 1995 WL 11065 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (applying New York
law), an action by a dog owner to recover from an airline for the death
of the owner's dog while it was being shipped as baggage, the court declared
that there is not yet a cause of action recognized for the pain and suffering
of an animal. |
Further
research
 Anyone
whose dog was injured or killed should obtain a copy of
the interactive book, What
To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed. For more information
about the book, click on the book's cover, on the right.
Attorneys
should read the excellent annotation Damages for Injuring or Killing
Dog by Robin Cheryl Miller, J.D. at 61 A.L.R.5th 635 (1998)
(American Law Reports, ALR5th, Volume 61, 1998). Other important articles
include:
- The
Economic Value of Companion Animals: A Legal and Anthropological
Argument for Special Valuation, by Geordie
Duckler, 8 Animal L. 199 (2002).
- Resolving
Confusion in Pet Owner Tort Cases: Recognizing Pets' Anthropomorphic
Qualities Under a Property Classification, by Lynn A. Epstein,
26 S. Ill. U. L. J. 31 (2001).
- Valuing
Man's and Woman's Best Friend: The Moral and Legal Status of
Companion Animals, by Rebecca Huss, 86 Marq. L. Rev. 47 (Fall,
2002).
- "Man's
Best Friend:" Property or Family Member? An Examination
of the Legal Classification of Companion Animals and Its Impact on
Damages Recoverable for Their Wrongful Death or Injury, by
William C. Root, 47 Vill. L. Rev. 423 (2002).
- Animals
as Property, Gary Francione.
|
|
Click
here or on the dog's face to return to the Index Page
|
|
www.dogbitelaw.com
welcomes your feedback
|
