![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM [glommed from wookiemonster via Facebook]: A Texas appellate court overturns a lower court’s ruling that a couple whose dog was wrongfully euthanized was entitled to damages for only the dog’s market value (i.e. what you’d pay for a similar breed of dog in a pet store). The new ruling allows for a dog’s true worth to be considered (i.e. as a member of the family).
Result: the ruling gives dogs (and presumably other pets) increased legal status by essentially saying they’re more than just property:
Which makes sense at face value. Pets may be “owned” in the same way you own a couch, but there’s an emotional bond there that goes way beyond having a favorite piece of furniture.
However, interestingly, various pet-related groups like the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, Health Institute, American Pet Products Association, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, have asked the judge to reverse the ruling:
The lesson: nothing is ever simple.
Personally I can see it both ways. I think the threat of financial burdens from lawsuits is only really a problem if you live in a country where civil litigation is practically a national sport. However, America IS that country. If civil defense lawyers could create teams and sell ad space on their suits and briefcases, the American legal business would be bigger than NASCAR.
So yeah, the pet industry groups probably have a point.
That said, I do think pets should be legally considered more than property, if for no other reason that it could lead to people like Michael Vicks getting stiffer prison sentences no matter how good they are at pro football.
But then I’m a dog owner who doesn't live in America, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
See you in court,
This is dF
wookiemonster via Facebook]: A Texas appellate court overturns a lower court’s ruling that a couple whose dog was wrongfully euthanized was entitled to damages for only the dog’s market value (i.e. what you’d pay for a similar breed of dog in a pet store). The new ruling allows for a dog’s true worth to be considered (i.e. as a member of the family).Result: the ruling gives dogs (and presumably other pets) increased legal status by essentially saying they’re more than just property:
“Because of the special position pets hold in the family, we see no reason why existing law should not be interpreted to allow recovery in the loss of a pet at least to the same extent as other personal property,” Justice Lee Gabriel wrote.
Which makes sense at face value. Pets may be “owned” in the same way you own a couch, but there’s an emotional bond there that goes way beyond having a favorite piece of furniture.
However, interestingly, various pet-related groups like the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, Health Institute, American Pet Products Association, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, have asked the judge to reverse the ruling:
“If this becomes the law of the land, it will lead to higher costs to own a pet, disproportionally hurting middle-class and low-income pet owners. Who will pay for those higher damage awards? The rest of us pet owners, of course,” said Adrian Hochstadt, AVMA assistant director of state legislative and regulatory affairs. “The obvious consequences will include fewer people being able to own pets and, unfortunately, more animal abandonment.”
The lesson: nothing is ever simple.
Personally I can see it both ways. I think the threat of financial burdens from lawsuits is only really a problem if you live in a country where civil litigation is practically a national sport. However, America IS that country. If civil defense lawyers could create teams and sell ad space on their suits and briefcases, the American legal business would be bigger than NASCAR.
So yeah, the pet industry groups probably have a point.
That said, I do think pets should be legally considered more than property, if for no other reason that it could lead to people like Michael Vicks getting stiffer prison sentences no matter how good they are at pro football.
But then I’m a dog owner who doesn't live in America, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
See you in court,
This is dF
