I’m guessing if this is allowed to proceed, that vetinary care cost will soar, because of insurance vets must purchase to avoid lawsuits of what people think their pet is worth.
Veterinary cost will go up for sure! Be prepared to pay more so they can pay their new insurance policies. If you could not afford pet-care before, it will only get worse.
OMG, this on the heels that we will have only a choice between one or the other of two black candidates for President……America has become the “dark” continent. I’ve voting for the white nigger.
First, there’s a huge differnce between a precedent-setting ruling handed down by an appeals court or a supreme court and what was adjudicated in this case. The higher court made no ruling determing the value of the dog, it simply remanded the case back down to be heard on the merits rather than summarily dismissed. Secondly, I think that even if an award over and above market value is rendered, there will be a certain amount of rationality dispensed by the courts. An example of this would be a jeweler losing an inherited ring during a cleaning. The owner may be able to recover a REASONABLE value for sentimental damage, but the court is not going to award them $1,000,000 for a $300 ring.
That said, as a dog owner I think a small chance of a small increase in veterinary bills is well worth it to know that I would gave grounds for suit if gross negligence was present. I don’t advocate suing at the drop of a hat, but if a veterinarian accidentally euthanized my dog I would consider that an error that rises to that standard. I personally feel the possibility of being sued could increase the attention to detail in many veterinary offices.
This ruling is a crock of crap by some idiot judge. Not as if there aren’t enough meritless cases clogging the flawed system already. The dog might have lived another few years and cost the owners some expense in vet care. How do you value something like this? You don’t. When courts start equating animals with human life for purposes of damages this country is in big trouble.
If it was found at the shelter, why didn’t they immediately take it home? Seems that once the dog escaped the yard, the only duty the shelter had was to notify the owner IF the dog was micro-chipped or had a license. Sounds like it didn’t, and the owner located it by making a phone call. Unfortnate, but hardly compensable.
In response to Jester comment: If it was found at the shelter, why didn’t they immediately take it home?
The story as I understand it is that the family located the dog at the animal shelter, but the shelter would not allow them to take it home immediately. They were told to come back the next Monday, but during that time the shelter mistakenly euthanized the dog.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
“Sentimental damages can be recovered for the loss or destruction of all types of personal property, including pets.” Can open, worms everywhere…
The decision reflects the growing trend that companion animals are more than just a piece of property.
Bet that the sentimental value changes as soon as they get another pooch.
I’m guessing if this is allowed to proceed, that vetinary care cost will soar, because of insurance vets must purchase to avoid lawsuits of what people think their pet is worth.
Veterinary cost will go up for sure! Be prepared to pay more so they can pay their new insurance policies. If you could not afford pet-care before, it will only get worse.
OMG, this on the heels that we will have only a choice between one or the other of two black candidates for President……America has become the “dark” continent. I’ve voting for the white nigger.
First, there’s a huge differnce between a precedent-setting ruling handed down by an appeals court or a supreme court and what was adjudicated in this case. The higher court made no ruling determing the value of the dog, it simply remanded the case back down to be heard on the merits rather than summarily dismissed. Secondly, I think that even if an award over and above market value is rendered, there will be a certain amount of rationality dispensed by the courts. An example of this would be a jeweler losing an inherited ring during a cleaning. The owner may be able to recover a REASONABLE value for sentimental damage, but the court is not going to award them $1,000,000 for a $300 ring.
That said, as a dog owner I think a small chance of a small increase in veterinary bills is well worth it to know that I would gave grounds for suit if gross negligence was present. I don’t advocate suing at the drop of a hat, but if a veterinarian accidentally euthanized my dog I would consider that an error that rises to that standard. I personally feel the possibility of being sued could increase the attention to detail in many veterinary offices.
Finally, Fish Man, you are an idiot!
This ruling is a crock of crap by some idiot judge. Not as if there aren’t enough meritless cases clogging the flawed system already. The dog might have lived another few years and cost the owners some expense in vet care. How do you value something like this? You don’t. When courts start equating animals with human life for purposes of damages this country is in big trouble.
If it was found at the shelter, why didn’t they immediately take it home? Seems that once the dog escaped the yard, the only duty the shelter had was to notify the owner IF the dog was micro-chipped or had a license. Sounds like it didn’t, and the owner located it by making a phone call. Unfortnate, but hardly compensable.
In response to Jester comment: If it was found at the shelter, why didn’t they immediately take it home?
The story as I understand it is that the family located the dog at the animal shelter, but the shelter would not allow them to take it home immediately. They were told to come back the next Monday, but during that time the shelter mistakenly euthanized the dog.