How Much Is That Puppy In Window (In Terms Of Pain & Suffering When It Dies)?

MayorBob.

Posted to Etcetera on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

According to Debra Campanile, losing Misty, her canine companion of some 13 years, "was devastating." The Massachusetts resident said Misty was part of her family and not just a pet. She wants Massachusetts to formally recognize how deeply pet owners feel about the loss of their pets. This is why is fervently pushing for some legislation which would allow pet owners to recover civil damages whenever a pet dies because of other than old age. When Campanile says whenever, she means whenever. Under the law she is seeking, humans could be financially liable for pain and suffering due to the loss of a pet - whether that loss came about due to animal abuse, reckless driving, or a mistake made by the veterinarian.

Misty died on a veterinarian's operating table back in 1998. Because pets were generally treated as property, Campanile had no standing to sue for pain and suffering resulting from the loss of Misty. The veterinarian offered to buy her another dog and Campanile turned that down, accepting an undisclosed out of court settlement. But she has never given up either the pain of losing Misty or her attempts to make things better for future pet owners. She's enlisted the aid of State Rep Jennifer Callahan (D - Sutton) who is sponsoring a petition which would award financial damages for pet losses. According to Campanile, it's only fair:

"That's the whole point of this. (The law treats) them like property. They need to have equal rights. I want people to fight more for their pets when these things happen. They know when you're there for them. They feel your love. They know you care."

Attempts to recognize the pain and suffering aspect to pet loss haven't been restricted to Massachusetts. A Washington state woman won a (US)$45,000 award from a jury from a jury in 2005 after her cat was mauled to death by a dog. This might jibe well with Campamile's sentiments as, in her version of pet emotional loss, the loss of a pet would result in a monetary award of not less than $2,500. That would be $1,500 less than an amount awarded to a Vermont family who lost their pet dog - an amount they say didn't come close to making up for their emotional distress.

One blogger, who was following the Vermont story, said she thinks the movement to make people pay for emotional distress and suffering due to what happens to pets is a "good idea." But she extends the argument beyond merely the loss of a pet to injuries and indignities pets suffer when they are kenneled.

< What's your idea of a "Hero"?

To What Standard Of Responsibility Should Parents Be Held? >

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, pets, death, lawsuit, pain and suffering (all tags)

Add this story to:

This story: 20 comments (3 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

1	It's a dog people - you can get a new one joshv. Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:33:39 AM EST 5.00 (astute)

I like pets just as much as the next guy, and would never condone abuse or negligence that leads to the premature death of a beloved pet. But still, it's an animal, and fundamentally replaceable. You can get another one just like it, that will love you just as much.

9 1	Yeah, get over it JimmyHavok. Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:41:08 PM EST 4.75 (astute, informative, interesting)

Your child is just a human being. There are six billion more out there to choose from, get over it.

Pets don't last as long as humans, that's something we have to face up to as pet owners. But a pet is just as unique as a human being, as anyone who has lived with a cat or dog knows. Killing someone's pet is a lot different from wrecking their car, and ought to be treated much differently.

My foreman's beloved dog (the only one out of the pack allowed to come in his house) was shot by a neighbor about a year ago. The neighbor shot her through a chain link fence, then told the police that he was "afraid" and just happened to have the shotgun in his garage. My foreman, Stan, has no idea why the neighbor shot Milly, but he says the guy has a reputation for being mean, and doesn't talk to any of the other neighbors.

Stan still talks about things the dog Milly did, like rescuing an abandoned kitten that became her baby, and how the cat still looks for Milly at dinner time, because they always ate together.

The neighbor was charged with cruelty to animals and fined a couple of hundred dollars, and has finally been served with a civil suit, but all Stan can really get out of it is the cash value of the dog. He's doing it because it's really the only legal recourse he has. He says that if the neighbor would even apologize he'd withdraw the suit, but the neighbor acts like he's the victim.

Since Milly was killed, a law with more teeth dealing with assaults on pets has been passed, but it doesn't apply to her case.

13 9	Re: Yeah, get over it postillion. Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:49:43 PM EST 5.00 (astute)

like rescuing an abandoned kitten

So, if our court system were to legally value the life of a pet much higher than it has previously, what should happen to the people who abandon pets?

It happens all the time. Ah, Easter is just around the bend...supposedly there are always a bunch of parents out there who think that it would be cute to get a rabbit for their kids on Easter without realizing that rabbits aren't the easiest pets. Sooner or later Thumper is tossed out into the wild...but Thumper is too domesticated to make it out in the wild.

And let's not even talk about the pets that are accidentally killed by their own owners. I know several people who left their garage doors open, the cat meandered in and sat on the car radiator, and someone unknowingly started the car. If anyone can be held liable for a death of a pet, is the owner liable for the death of his own pet?

And, in such a legislation, how would the legal system place a monetary value on different pets? How does the suffering of a fish owner compare to a horse owner? Or a dog owner to a cat owner?

I am tossing these out there because I think these are questions that would come up if such a legislation were to pass. If anyone can answer such hefty moral questions, I would love to hear it.

13

Some pet pain & suffering lawyer ...

MayorBob.

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:15:10 AM EST

5.00 (funny, brilliant, brilliant)

... is going to hit the jackpot when he finds the kid whose ant farm got overturned.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

13

And yes I suppose you'd have to include plants

thefadd.

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:15:28 PM EST

none

Personally, the only bit of legislation I could get behind would be one where you had to show malicious intent. This would be a high bar for sure but it's one that cases like the one described in the write-up would almost certainly meet. This would essentially protect care providers and exclude things like pet-on-pet violence. It would also negate wetkarma's computer analogy and similar concerns. I would think that you could still go after people under current law for intentionally inflicting emotional pain on you--bullying and such. However, unless the intention was to kill the animal to intimidate the person, that could be a high burden of proof. I would view such legislation as simply an extension of that concept to just include say "malicious destruction of living property" as in the same category as the emotional distress caused by bullying.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

11 9	Re: Yeah, get over it joshv. Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST 4.66 (brilliant, funny)

Could you point me to the local infant rescue shelter were I can pick up a baby for a couple hundred dollars if I bring a letter from my landlord and pay for the shots?

11

Re: Yeah, get over it

JimmyHavok.

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:01:12 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

Gladly.

3 1	Re: It's a dog people - you can get a new one thefadd. Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST none

Yeah, it seems to me that at the very least, you've got to exempt veterinarians from this. If you allow vets to be held liable in this way, their fees are going to become more exorbitant. That's going to mean better treatment for a select few animals because of this law at the expense of decreased care for the general pet population. I wouldn't be shocked to find out this lady is somehow backed by the burgeoning pet insurance industry.

Then there's the issue of pet on pet violence. It's one thing to say that when a person does something to an animal that's bad. But people are legally responsible for the actions of their animal, too. Some nitwit walks her dog without a leash and god forbid my dog takes a bight at the annoying little yapper and I'm financially liable for her pain and suffering. Give me a break.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

16 3	pet care skeptic. Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:40:25 AM EST 4.00 (interesting)

That is a good observation, that by increasing the legal liability of veterinarians, you would also increase the cost of their services. Veterinarians, if faced with the risk of large legal judgments for malpractice, would have to buy malpractice insurance, which would be very expensive; they would, of course, have to pass that cost on to their customers. Much the same thing has already happened in the field of human medicine. Doctors charge a lot, and this is at least partially because they do have to buy expensive malpractice insurance.

Many people get pets without thinking of the long-term costs. Veterinary care, even without the added cost of malpractice insurance, is often quite expensive, yet people pick up a dog or cat thinking only that they can afford the pet food. That's just the beginning of what they may have to spend.

Perhaps people who want pets should always be required to buy health insurance for their pets. That way the cost is not hidden, and people will not be misled into getting pets that they really can't afford. And who knows, perhaps when President Obama brings in the new program of government health insurance for all Americans, he can also create a system of health insurance for their pets. If such a thing were done, there would then be a good financial basis with which to create new legal standards for the health care of pets, and the penalties that can be assessed for veterinary malpractice.

I know that my sister loves her pet dog as much as if it were her own child. One can argue as to whether pets really deserve that degree of love, but even so, pet owners deserve some protection for the pets that they love so deeply. A pet is not just a possession that can be replaced at will, like a nice table or chair.

2	Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window... skeeter1. Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM EST 4.50 (interesting, astute)

I'm as much of a pet lover as anyone. I've had cats around me since I was born 54 years ago. I currently have three.

In the past, I have owned some fairly expensive (Burmese) cats, but anymore I prefer to rescue cats (not cute little kittens) from shelters.

Are they part of the family? Sure. Are they children? Certainly not. You can replace a pet. You can't replace a child. Should they be regarded as property? Probably, and little more.

Yes, you can (as I have) get attached to them, but they are pets, not family members.

I feel bad for Campanile over her loss of Misty. However, should she be get a large financial settlement because of that loss? Not in my mind. Not when you can provide a home for a shelter animal for free.

I've had many cats pass away during my time on this planet, and after a brief period of grieving (let's say two weeks), I go to the shelter and rescue another one. They won't have exactly the same personality, but you and they adapt to each other. All of my cats were found abandoned as "throw-outs" in parking lots. Well, all three of them are in the family room with me as I write this.

My diatribe here: Support your local animal shelter and give a good pet a good home.

To quote an often overused expression, "What would Jesus do?"

there's only one way to find out...

4 2	Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window... ivyafire. Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:43:02 PM EST 5.00 (interesting, astute, astute)

Pets have individual personalities, just like humans do. They're not the same, sure, but to say they are replaceable isn't exactly true either.

I've never had a pet who wasn't part of the family, and while I don't feel like a deliberate or negligent accidental injury to a pet should be punished quite as severely as a deliberate or accidental injury to a human, I don't feel like it's nothing, either.

I think life insurance for pets may be carrying it a bit too far, but I think a negligent death ought to be actionable. The pain and suffering is real for the person who loved that animal. Especially in instances like that jackass who threw the woman's dog into traffic after an accident.

Considering that serial killers often start out harming animals, I think it's important that people who deliberately harm animals are held accountable, if for no other reason than compiling evidence for later. Old age though? Nah.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

5 2	Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window... spleneticus. Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:48:51 PM EST 4.75 (astute, interesting, astute)

Are they part of the family? Sure. Are they children? Certainly not. You can replace a pet. You can't replace a child.

What if the child is adopted? Is it part of the family? Of course. And can be replaced...

17 5	Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window... ivyafire. Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:38:23 PM EST none

What if the child is adopted? Is it part of the family? Of course. And can be replaced...
Well...you can get another, sure, but you aren't going to get an exact replica.
I mean, you can replace a pencil with a crayon, for that matter, but it doesn't make it the same.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

8	pain and suffering wetkarma. Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST 4.00 (interesting, funny)

Years ago when I was much poorer, my girlfriend (now my wife) and I went to France for our first vacation together. We spent a week in Paris and another week travelling the french countryside -- along the way stopping off in Monaco, watching a bull fight in Arles, taking the train up to Amsterdam. Generally a good time was had by all and I had a ton of pictures to remember it.

I came back from vacation, offloaded the pictures from my camera to my brand new computer (just recently bought the month prior) and left the next day for Los Angeles. Upon my return - I came back to a dead machine; more specifically a dead hard drive. All my pictures? Gone - every single one*.

To this day I still wince to think about it. Since my computer was most definetly under warranty, the manufacturer offered to replace the hard drive for free. To say that I felt this was inadequate compensation unsterstates things. Had I the financial ability, I'd have sued the company for millions..nay billions! Which is probably why saner more objective minds place limits on what you can legitimately sue for.

See the point of my lawsuit (and I suspect this lady's as well) wouldn't be the money -- but to 'pass on' some meaningful level of despair to the person I blamed for my tragedy. To that extent I understand where this woman is coming from - I don't agree ..but I understand.

* Since then I've sworn myself to a level of paranoia regarding data retention - my systems now all use RAID drives connected to an online backup service (Carbonite).

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

10 8	Re: pain and suffering thefadd. Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST 3.00 (funny, informative)

what?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

6	Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window postillion. Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:03:46 PM EST none

I think there might be a misunderstanding about why there are awards for deaths when a business is held liable.

It is not only a recognition of the suffering of the survivors; the penalty doled to a business is an incentive for the business to correct whatever mistake led to the wrongful death.

Such a broadly defined law wherever anyone can be held liable for a death of a pet, except for in old age instances, would lead to the following:

Veterinarians and other animal businesses, such as animal boarders, would all have to get malpractice insurance which would result in higher prices for their services
Animals are not necessarily meant to live within human infrastructures (even if they are domesticated). To give an example, cats are often let out and run over at intersections. Who should be held at fault here? The litigation system would be overrun with all sorts of cases that are not necessarily legitimate.

It's one thing to maliciously mistreat an animal. There are already laws in regards to that. However, accidents happen all the time when pets are out and not on a lease.

7 6	Good Law Shy Elf. Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:15:18 PM EST 5.00 (funny)

I think I'll get 37 puppies, let them run around outside without supervision, and, set up closed circuit TV cameras to catch anyone who runs over one.

18 6	Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window ivyafire. Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:40:46 PM EST none

if your pet gets out, it's an accident.

I suppose some smart lawyer could make a case for a defective fence, or a shoddy landlord who didn't repair the fence.....

But I can't see how a motorist could be at fault for a dog running into the street.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

18

Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window

thefadd.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:14:09 PM EST

none

Easy. Put up some "Dog Crossing" signs. Then they can't say they weren't warned ;-)

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

19

Got A Better Way Of Slowing Down Traffic.

MayorBob.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:43:02 PM EST

none

Put out some "Nude Sunbathing Neighborhood" signs.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

This story: 20 comments (3 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

MayorBob.

Posted to Etcetera on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

It's a dog people - you can get a new one

joshv.

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:33:39 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

1

Yeah, get over it

JimmyHavok.

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:41:08 PM EST

4.75 (astute, informative, interesting)

9

Re: Yeah, get over it

postillion.

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:49:43 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

13

Some pet pain & suffering lawyer ...

MayorBob.

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:15:10 AM EST

5.00 (funny, brilliant, brilliant)

13

And yes I suppose you'd have to include plants

thefadd.

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:15:28 PM EST

9

Re: Yeah, get over it

joshv.

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST

4.66 (brilliant, funny)

11

Re: Yeah, get over it

JimmyHavok.

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:01:12 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

1

Re: It's a dog people - you can get a new one

thefadd.

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST

3

pet care

skeptic.

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:40:25 AM EST

4.00 (interesting)

Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window...

skeeter1.

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM EST

4.50 (interesting, astute)

2

Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window...

ivyafire.

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:43:02 PM EST

5.00 (interesting, astute, astute)

2

Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window...

spleneticus.

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:48:51 PM EST

4.75 (astute, interesting, astute)

5

Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window...

ivyafire.

Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:38:23 PM EST

pain and suffering

wetkarma.

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST

4.00 (interesting, funny)

8

Re: pain and suffering

thefadd.

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST

3.00 (funny, informative)

Re: How Much Is That Puppy In Window

postillion.

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:03:46 PM EST

6

Good Law

Shy Elf.

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:15:18 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

6