|
 Legal Briefs
By Gina Valeri Director of Legislative Affairs & General Council, APPMA As Dr. Marty Becker said at this year's Global Pet Expo Annual Breakfast, our pets have moved from the dog house, to the back door stoop, into our homes, and even our beds, and are now considered to be part of our families. The pet industry nurtures the bonding by providing a variety of products for the care and welfare of companion animals. Many see this evolution and the pet industry’s encouragement of this view as justification to change the law regarding damages for the loss or injury to a pet. Those seeking this change would like to see damages for the loss of a pet to include damages for emotional distress of the owner and/or pain and suffering of the animal caused by the tortuous acts of another. If the law changes to accept these non-economic damages for the loss or injury of a pet, the entire pet industry will be affected. Historically, pets have been viewed as personal property in the eyes of the law, just like other animals such as farm livestock. The law holds that fair market value of the animal is considered just compensation for its loss because it represents the economic value of the animal. However, many people believe that the care and love shared between people and their companion animals, when broken, constitutes more than mere fair market value of that animal. Our pets have names, spend quality time with us in much the same way as any family member would, and in some cases, share in our habits and day-to-day activities like going to work with us. Indeed, a shelter dog which costs $50 is bonded to its owner in the same way as a rare purebred, as is an imported fancy bird or reptile. Rather than general personal property, some individuals believe that animals should be considered as having an elevated property value like a family heirloom. However, most courts do not recognize higher economic value for such property. Many state courts and legislatures are currently wrestling with the issue of appropriate damages for the loss of a pet. In California, a case which may side with the camp that believes in non-economic damages is currently on appeal. In Bluestone v. Bergstrom, the jury in a Superior Court in Southern California declared that “special and unique” damages in the amount of $30,000 were warranted for the negligent care given to a 3-year old dog suffering of seizures. The plaintiff contended that Dr. Craig Bergstrom improperly overmedicated and treated Shane, a shelter dog, and that his owner, Marc Bluestone, did not give informed consent for the treatment. According to one juror, over the course of two days worth of deliberations, the jury considered damages as high as $100,000 for the emotional damages suffered by the owner. In Texas, the court looked at the issue of the type of damages recoverable for the loss of a pet dog, which had escaped from a PETCO groomer and was run over by traffic. In PETCO v. Shuster, the dog’s owner claimed that she experienced $645,000 in mental anguish while searching for her lost dog as well as $280,000 for loss in companionship, and $1 million in exemplary damages. After a lower court awarded $10,000 each for mental anguish, loss of companionship and exemplary damages, the appeals court agreed with PETCO that Texas law did not warrant these types of damages. Economic damages are fair because they are measurable whereas non-economic damages are based on emotions. More importantly, to allow non-economic damages for pet loss would give a remedy to people for pets where it doesn’t exist for many closer family relationships. For example, the law does not allow a plaintiff to sue for injury to one’s grandmother or best friend or companion. Thus, elevating one’s pet beyond best friend to the legal status shared with one’s spouse or child would place higher value than many other traditional family relationships. For the time being, it seems that the majority of states agree with this general tenant. In fact, the Council of State Governments (CSG), published a Resolution on Animal Guardianship and Liability Legislation, stating that CSG “opposes legislation permitting the recovery of non-economic damages for the loss or injury of a pet, livestock or other animal.” This view is also shared by the California Veterinary Medical Association and is currently under review at the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) after it convened a task force to study the issue. The AVMA’s Task Force on the Legal Status of Animals, on which APPMA participated, recommended to the AVMA Board that it formally oppose non-economic damages as well. The jury is still out on the matter, not only in the court system but among the public as well. APPMA believes that the current legal status of companion animals actually protects them better than allowing expanded damages for their loss or injury because the increased cost of litigation will result in higher insurance fees and litigation claims, and therefore, decreased care. Plaintiffs’ lawyers will view this area as the next frontier and the cost of increased volume of claims clogging the court system will be born by all. Lastly, there are many laws which adequately protect animals already. At the federal level, the Animal Welfare Act protects animals through breeding license and inspection authority. At the state level, pet warranty laws, veterinary licensing and products liability laws protect pets and their owners further. At the local level, animal welfare laws, shelter regulations and the vigilance of animal welfare groups provide protection for pets. This is why APPMA has joined the Animal Health Institute, the Pet Food Institute, and many other pet organizations in a statement of principles which outline our view, that for the benefit of pet animals and their caregivers, the law should remain as it is. Specifically, the principles drafted by the Coalition for Healthy Pets reads, “If such non-economic damages were allowed in lawsuits involving pets, potential liability would increase significantly, raising pet healthcare costs over time and, as a result, limiting access to pet healthcare.” If you would like more information on this issue or would like to share your views, contact Gina Valeri, APPMA’s Director of Legislative Affairs & General Counsel by e-mail at gina@appma.org or by phone at 203.532.3600.
|
|
