Apr
11
2013

In the conclusion to a long-running court battle between a pet-owning couple and a Texas animal shelter, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that pet owners cannot sue for non-economic damages.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Don R. Willett acknowledged in his written opinion regarding Medlen v. Strickland that dogs are an important part of the family, but said in the end he has to rule that dogs are property.

“No one disputes that a family dog - ‘in life the firmest friend’ - is a treasured companion. But it is also personal property, and the law draws sensible, policy-based distinctions between types of property,” he wrote.

According to Willett, the court weighed strong concerns about the potentially harmful effects of allowing non-economic damages from groups such as the Texas Municipal League, various insurance groups, and the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, which said in a post-ruling press release that it applauded the decision because the awarding of large damages would “fundamentally change the way veterinarians practice medicine by forcing them to practice defensively, which translated to increased costs for veterinary care.”

Willett wrote that allowing pet owners to sue for non-economic damages would have raised a plethora of additional issues, many of which he felt were more suited for consideration by the state's Legislature.

"Questions abound: who can sue, who can be sued, for what missteps, for what types of damages, for how much money? And what of the societal ripple effects on veterinarians, animal-medicine manufacturers, homeowners and drivers seeking insurance, pet owners, pet caretakers, and ultimately pets themselves?" Willett asked in his written opinion.  

"Animal-death suits portend fundamental changes to our civil-justice system, not incremental adjustments on a case-by-case basis. They require detailed findings and eligibility criteria, which in turn require the careful balancing of a range of views from a range of perspectives, something best left to our 181-member Legislature.”

Although the state's legal stance on the economic value of pets will maintain its status quo for now, Willett said the court is not blind to the sentiments of pet owners.

“Our precedent on the legal valuation of companion animals has endured for 122 years, and while we decline today to expand the damages available to bereaved pet owners, we understand the strength of the human-animal bond,” he wrote.

Comments (3) -

MeadowLark
MeadowLarkUnited States
4/11/2013 6:48:35 PM #

This article depends on the status quo, established and fostered for 122 years. ("Our precedent on the legal valuation of companion animals has endured for 122 years"). How many things have endured 122 years? In that time period, we've seen slavery, racism, and civil rights. Sexism, objectivation of women, and feminism. How many things have survived? Very few... Yet, somehow, we've failed to acknowledge the ability of animals to experience good and bad: happiness and pain. I'm not suggesting a dog should hire a lawyer and take his case to court. But I AM suggesting that we cannot consider animals our mere property, to do with as we absolutely please. We need to consider their welfare, their well-being, their relationships with us. Maybe people don't deserve non-economic damages--that's fine by me-- but I think we need to lift man's best friend from the lowly ranks of property to something more.

MeadowLark
MeadowLarkUnited States
4/11/2013 6:49:12 PM #

This article depends on the status quo, established and fostered for 122 years. ("Our precedent on the legal valuation of companion animals has endured for 122 years"). How many things have endured 122 years? In that time period, we've seen slavery, racism, and civil rights. Sexism, objectivation of women, and feminism. How many things have survived? Very few... Yet, somehow, we've failed to acknowledge the ability of animals to experience good and bad: happiness and pain. I'm not suggesting a dog should hire a lawyer and take his case to court. But I AM suggesting that we cannot consider animals our mere property, to do with as we absolutely please. We need to consider their welfare, their well-being, their relationships with us. Maybe people don't deserve non-economic damages--that's fine by me-- but I think we need to lift man's best friend from the lowly ranks of property to something more.

podeycat
podeycatUnited States
4/13/2013 4:07:06 AM #

Couldn't agree more.  To define a nonhuman animal as "property" is ethically wrong.  As veterinarians, I would hope we would be at the lead of recognizing them as individuals and, therefore, worthy of greater consideration in all aspects of life, including our legal system.

The Standard of Veterinary Excellence ®
American Animal Hospital Association | Copyright © 2017 | Privacy Statement | Contact Us