TruthaboutPetFood.com

The other thing I like about this that is of significance is that the dog is still considered "property" and they can attach a sentimental value to it. So without elevating our pets to the status of people, they can still be held to a higher value than common property like a TV or something like that. To me, that's a perfect compromise on the question of whether we need to view pets as property or sentient beings to be able to protect them and punish those that harm them. 

This is fabulous, wonderful news.  Do you think though that pet food companies will now seek higher liability insurance limits which they will, in turn, pass on to the consumer?

Yes! Thanks to the Medlens and their good lawyer for persevering! When my little dog was nearly killed by a vicious dog allowed to run loose in the city, I explored legal actions I could take against the owner of this dog (who had also taken a chunk out of the butt of my previous dog) but found out I had none. In California and most of the other states.

I saw this article too and thought, "Oh brother, is Big Food gonna be #%$*&@! bricks over this ruling."

Do you think the PFI (are you listening Dr. Dzanis?) is still so arrogant that they would be foolish enough to dismiss this as well?

Considering they have created a empire built largely by the slow, systemic poisoning of animals, pets as well as livestock, with impunity for decades, the answer is: probably.

They have profited from the sale of food made from euthanized pets, road kill, rotten, spoiled meat and rancid used cooking oil long enough. Don't believe me? Read Senate Bill SB 513, in part, it states:

"Rendering plants take in a wide variety of materials such as parts of slaughtered animals that are not suitable for human consumption, dead pets from veterinarians, dead livestock, animals found dead on the sides of roads, spoiled meat from supermarkets and used cooking oils from restaurants."

I would urge everyone to sign Susan's We the Pet People at www.change.org and tell all your friends to do so as well. Get your social media fingers working. If you are dilligent and patient, the petition is also on the www.Whitehouse.gov site.

And for Dr. Dzanis, who's snarky comment on the PFI site about Susan's petition, inferring the lack of intelligence of pet advocates vs. all the pot heads and stoners...I give you this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jh-snider/we-the-people-petition-website_b_1062883.html

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

I’m all for the victory, particularly regarding the impact on commercial pet food.  The notation of “sentient being” certainly makes sense in relationship to assigning a “sentimental value” to the case. 

However has anyone thought about the “flip side” of this ruling, regarding Veterinarian Practices?  If this ruling survives appeal, it will open the door for much higher malpractice lawsuit claims. 

Of course you would think Vets would increase their level of care and diligence in anticipation of this ruling.  But if they can’t even handle the issue of proper pet food nutrition, it’s unlikely they’ll change their ways in any fashion. 

It will probably increase their liability insurance.  Which … as you guess ….will of course be passed on to consumers through even higher cost of care.  Which is something most people can ill-afford in bad economic times. 

The only remedy I can think of is to offer the client a waiver of responsibility (or a hold-harmless agreement) to opt out for more affordable cost of care. 

Wow.  It's about time, for sure.  Maybe now the PFIs will start testing ingredients BEFORE they go into your pet's food.

Thanks for posting this news; I was unaware of this. As a Texan, I appreciate knowing this development, as I've been pondering for months now whether or not to seek litigation regarding a pet loss our family suffered. Please keep us all updated on any developments. Thanks again!

Annabellesmom,  how absolutely heartbreaking and frightening!

My friend and I used to agonize over whether it was worth the risk to anesthetize our respective dogs for dental cleaning.  Every Vet was always trying to schedule the procedure.  There were no reputable non-anesthesia dental Techs in our area.   And the “chain” that was trying to promote that service was nearly taken to court by the Bay Area Vet Practices claiming they were incompetent.

We finally found one experienced Tech that would come up from So. Cal. who worked on the dogs like your own Hygienist would on you, with all the right tools, do the exam, and then refer you only if necessary.  She also taught us how to care for our dog’s teeth.  My 12 yr old still has very, very good teeth as a result.  I realize cats are very different however.

What does all this have to do with the point you are making?   Vets are in business to make money at every opportunity!  When something goes wrong it is NEVER their fault.  Even the most minor treatments, in some cases, you must sign away all liability first. Especially regarding Emergency Vet care, at the very worst time when you have no alternative.  It is absolutely ridiculous that a Professional can’t unquestionably stand behind his or her service. 

The funny (not) thing is that if those same Professionals took their child to a doctor and something wrong happened, particularly due to negligence, then guess how quickly a lawsuit would follow?  And just guess how much money would be involved??

Truly a double standard in the Vet Industry, and the lack of knowledge and experience regarding healthy and safe Pet Nutrition is only the tip of the iceberg!    

I think this issue begs the question of responsibility; ethical, moral and legal.

I believe (call me crazy) that if you offer a service or goods you are responsible for providing the highest quality service or the best product your wisdom and finances can muster. Being responsible also means being held liable for what you do or create and it requires that you protect yourself and your client for the possibility of error or failure. Often, that protection, in a civilized society, means liability insurance.

My father is an architect, and a fabulous one at that if I say so myself, but if he didn't carry liability insurance against the unforeseen dangers that lurk in materials years and years down the road - he would be just asking for it. That insurance reassures the client and protects him. Does he pass the cost of insurance premiums on to clients? Of course he does, everyone does. You take all your expenses into consideration when you set your market prices - whether it's for a dog biscuit or your fee for designing a house.

Since virtually every product carries some unknown risk, a possibility always exists that the product may cause injuries or impose other costs on users. These costs are distributed among the members of our society.

Manufacturers know in advance that there is always a risk of liability any product, and can therefore build the cost of potential lawsuits into the price of those products. Manufacturers also have the research expertise and laboratories, the engineering and technical knowledge, and the budgets to assess the risks of product use and to ensure that these products are safe.

Our society is entering a new era when pets are valued for more than the cost that was paid for them, and with it new laws be created to protect them. It will also meanthat health providers for pets and pet product manufacturers will have a greater responsibility because they will be held liable for endangering or harming the life of a pet, a pet that will have a value equal to or greater than that of a human member of a family. Naturally, they would be wise to increase their liability insurance.

Now that the State of Texas has ruled that pets have an intrinsic value should cause any provider or manufacturer to pause and consider the added obligation and responsibility manufacturers have should have them make safety a priority and to understand that those pets and pet parents who suffer injuries could hold them liable.

Until the world comes to a screeching halt and suddenly becomes a perfect place where no harm is ever done and no evil befalls a single living thing - living with uncertainty, except in the certainty that there will always be change - is something we all have to accept and make peace with.

I think it can be benefit if your "enemies" think you are dumb. By the time they wake up - it may be too late for them. Keep snoozing Dr. D. and friends. It doesn't really matter what you think.  The unsinkable tobacco industry comes to mind. Things are changing all around - the smart corporations change and survive. The dumb ones will face extinction when "dumb" consumers take their money elsewhere. And without profits share holders will take their money to those corporations who act socially responsible.

Veterinarians who provide excellent service will most likely not see a dramatic increase in malpractice insurance. Bad vets will and they should. More of a concern to me: frivilous lawsuits. They are the rotten apples that will truly send insurance premiums soaring and may force even good vets to close. Ob/gyns in human medicine are showing us the scary results of these frivilous law suits.

I still believe overall this decision is a major step. Even if this one should be overturned, it has already opened the door. Can't unring that bell in the long run.

Surely an owner's affection for and attachment to a dog—not the market value—is the greater loss when a dog is killed. Two states have laws explicitly recognizing this fact. Rhode Island law allows evidence not only of the market value of an animal but also its "actual value to the owner." And Tennessee allows someone whose pet is killed by the negligence of someone else to recover up to $5,000 in damages as compensation for the loss of the pet's "society, companionship, love and affection." ²⁰

In the other states, it's up to the courts. And some courts simply do not allow sentimental value to be considered; they stick to market value. An Alaska court stated flatly that the owners' "subjective estimation of [their dog] Wizzard's value as a pet was not a valid basis for compensation," and allowed them to recover only the $300 market value of their dog, which had been killed by mistake in a dog pound. ²¹ A Minnesota appeals court reached the same conclusion in 1994, citing an 1890 court ruling that because pets are property, the market value is the proper measure of the owner's loss. ²² Other courts give up because of the difficulty in putting a dollar amount on the loss: "It is impossible to reduce to monetary terms the bond between man and dog," said one, limiting a dog owner's recovery to the cost of veterinary treatment. ²³

Some courts, however, have been willing to give it a shot. Recognizing that "the affection of a master for his dog is a very real thing … for which the owner should recover, irrespective of the value of the animal," the Supreme Court of Florida reversed a lower court's ruling that "sentimental value" couldn't be considered when valuing a pet. ²⁴

In a veterinary malpractice case in California, a jury awarded the owner of a dog $10 for the dog's market value—and another $30,000 for its special value. California law allows such an award if an item has "peculiar value" to the owner, and the person who harmed it knew that fact. ²⁵

An Illinois court compared the loss of a dog to the loss of other unique and irreplaceable items, such as family heirlooms or photographs. Because these objects, which are not bought and sold, have no meaningful market value, the court ruled, damages are measured by their "actual value to the owner." ²⁶ Other courts reject this reasoning. ²⁷

Just because the law doesn't allow consideration of sentimental value when computing damages does not, of course, mean that a judge (or jury, if the case is brought in regular, not small claims, court) doesn't unconsciously consider it.

Evidence of special value can be as simple as testimony about the importance of the dog in the owner's life. If the owner is cut off from family or friends, lives alone, or is unusually dependent on a dog, a court is more likely to figure in sentimental value.

The issue of special damages is getting a lot of attention as lawsuits related to the huge 2007 pet food recall wind their way through the courts. The tainted food, which was widely distributed under many different brands in 2007, sickened thousands of dogs and cats before it was taken off store shelves. Both individual lawsuits and class actions have been filed in several states, seeking damages from the manufacturers and distributors of the food. If the pet owners find a few sympathetic judges or juries, the legal status of compensation for the loss of a pet could change significantly.

In the eyes of the law, a dog is just another thing: something you buy, sell, and own, like a car. Anyone who has lost a beloved pet, of course, knows that the law is simply wrong. And some courts have come around, recognizing that "a pet is not just a thing but occupies a special place somewhere in between a person and a piece of personal property....To say it is a piece of personal property and no more is a repudiation of our humaneness." ²⁸

This change in attitude is shown by courts' willingness to let people sue for the mental anguish they suffer when they lose a pet because of malicious or extremely reckless acts. The legal theory is similar to the one that lets people sue when a child or spouse is injured; they can sue not only for lost income, but for the emotional anguish the death triggers.

The law in this area is still developing, and its boundaries are unclear. Some states' courts (West Virginia's, for example) ²⁹ do not allow claims for mental suffering. Other states impose various limitations. In some places, to recover for mental anguish, the person must see the injury take place, or suffer physical injury, or require medical treatment. The rules change constantly as courts refine—or, just as often, confuse—them.

Generally, people can sue for two types of mental distress: first, the shock and distress caused by seeing an accident or mistreatment, and second, the grief and long-term effect the loss has on their lives. The more outrageous the conduct of the person being sued, the larger the monetary award is likely to be. Proving mental suffering, which of course is in the mind of the sufferer, is not always easy. But the person suing can testify about how he felt at the death of the pet and how the loss disrupted his life. If the person sought medical treatment or psychological counseling, that will strengthen the claims.

The best way to get a feel for what the rules are is to look at some actual cases:

• A family was awarded $1,000 for the mental anguish they suffered when their nine-year-old dog died of heat prostration after state agency employees in Hawaii left it in an unventilated van in the sun. ³⁰
• A landlord in Hayward, California, agreed to pay a ten-year-old boy $5,000 for the emotional distress the boy suffered when he had to give up his dog. The landlord had violated the city's rent control ordinance by evicting the boy's family, and the dog was not allowed in their new apartment.
• A family sued and won $13,000 after their dog was seriously injured in a Florida animal hospital and subsequently had to be destroyed. The dog had been left on a heating pad for almost two days without care, and was severely burned. The court allowed the jury, when it decided on how much to award the family, to consider their mental pain and suffering. ³¹ A few years later, another court ruled that such a recovery was not permissible under state law, which requires a physical injury before emotional injuries can be considered. ³²
• A New York judge gave $700 to a woman who, at her dog's funeral, opened the casket and found a dead cat inside. The animal hospital where the dog had died apparently didn't give the dog's remains to Bide-A-Wee, the organization that arranged the funeral. The judge found that the owner had suffered shock, mental anguish, and despondency due to the loss of the dog's body, and was deprived of her wish for an elaborate funeral and the right to visit the dog's grave. ³³
• An Oregon woman who asked a vet to humanely destroy her dog, which had been shot and was in extreme pain, was awarded $4,000 for her mental anguish when she discovered that the vet had not euthanized the dog, but had given it away. Her worry about what her children would go through when they found the dog living with someone else justified the jury verdict, an appeals court ruled. ³⁴ She was also awarded $700 in punitive damages.
• A judge refused to allow a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in a case where an Alaska couple's dog was impounded and mistakenly killed. The couple went to the pound at 4:50 in the afternoon to retrieve the dog, which they could see chained in the back of the pound, but employees said the pound was closed and refused to release the dog. When the couple went back the next day, the dog had been killed. These circumstances weren't severe enough to warrant an emotional distress claim, the trial judge ruled. ³⁵
• A Pennsylvania appellate court threw out a claim that a veterinarian had intentionally or recklessly caused dog owners severe emotional distress. The veterinarian, looking at an X-ray of another dog, told the owners that their dog had to be operated on; it was, and later, when the true cause of the dog's illness was discovered, it was too late to save the dog's life. The owners claimed the veterinarian tried to conceal his mistake from them. The court ruled that the primary misconduct was directed at the dog, not the owners. ³⁶
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court noted that "[l]abeling a dog 'property' fails to describe the value human beings place upon the companionship that they enjoy with a dog," but nevertheless refused to allow a woman whose dog had been shot and killed by police to sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress. ³⁷
• A woman whose pet horses were sold for slaughter by the people who boarded them was allowed to sue for the intentional infliction of emotional distress in Kentucky. ³⁸

Punitive damages. In states that don't allow emotional distress claims, a dog owner may be able to get punitive damages (damages meant to punish the wrongdoer) if a dog was harmed intentionally or in some truly outrageous way. Punitive damages are discussed just below.

Keep in mind that you can sue only for your loss—the loss of or injury to your property, the dog. A dog can't sue for its own suffering. A federal court threw out a $50,000 lawsuit brought in a dog's name against USAir, for example. The dog had been left on a conveyor belt in the Tampa, Florida, airport, after its owners' flight took off. ³⁹

When a court orders someone who injured or killed a dog to pay the dog's owner, that money is intended to compensate the owner for the economic and emotional loss, not to punish the wrongdoer. If the actions were especially outrageous or deliberate, however, the judge or jury in a civil lawsuit may assess "punitive damages" against the wrongdoer. Punitive damages are like a fine, except that the money is paid to the other side in a lawsuit, not to the government. They are added on to the amount the dog owner gets as compensation for the loss of the dog.

Punitive damages are given only when someone has caused injury intentionally or recklessly. Punitive damages may, however, be especially appropriate in animal cases, where compensatory damages are likely to be low. As a Minnesota court pointed out, if compensatory damages don't make it worthwhile to sue, the wrongdoing will go unpunished unless punitive damages are given. ⁴⁰

Here are some examples:

• A jury awarded punitive damages against a man who hit a dog in the head with a large rock, giving the dog convulsions and a concussion. A New York appeals court ruled that the malicious act justified punitive damages. ⁴¹
• An appellate court did not allow punitive damages against a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, animal shelter that picked up a woman's dog and mistakenly sent it to a research laboratory, where it was killed. The court ruled that the animal shelter must pay the owner $5,000 in compensatory damages, but not the extra $5,000 the jury had awarded in punishment. Why? Because, the court said, the shelter had been merely careless—it had sent the woman's dog to the lab after a day, even though it was required to keep animals for three days—but it had not acted willfully or recklessly. ⁴²
• Punitive damages were allowed, however, against a Minnesota animal warden who killed an impounded cat although he knew that a city ordinance required that it be kept five days. The warden killed the animal simply because the city had no facilities to take care of it—showing, in the words of the court, "a willful disregard for both the law and the property rights of private citizens." A jury awarded the cat's owner $40 in compensatory damages and $2,000 in punitive damages. The appeal court reduced the punitive damages to $500. ⁴³

Lawsuits against a government agency. Many states do not allow punitive damages against a city government unless a state law specifically authorizes it. Individual public officers, however, are liable for punitive damages just like other individuals are. ⁴⁴

Penalties built into state law. In Maine, the owner of a dog that kills or injures another pet may be subject, under state law, to a $100 forfeiture in addition to whatever damages the pet's owner suffered. ⁴⁵

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter9-6.html