Thomas Dock, Vet. Technician
Thomas Dock, Vet. Technician
Male, 44
Indianapolis - IN
Interests: animals, Reading (sci-fi and fantasy), Pet health education, genetics, Biology, zoology, evolution, immunology
Male, 44
Indianapolis - IN
Interests: animals, Reading (sci-fi and fantasy), Pet health education, genetics, Biology, zoology, evolution, immunology
All Journal Entries
Journals
Emotional Damages For the Loss of a Pet?
Aug 18, 2009 02:03PM
- 7 comments
Tags:
Tags:
In keeping with controversial topics this week, I found a story out of Virginia about a man who is suing his former domestic partner for emotional distress after the death of his Chihuahua.
In a nutshell…here’s the story: Jeffrey Nanni and Maurice Smith were former domestic partners. Two years ago, Smith allegedly beat their 12 lb Chihuahua with a wooden board. Smith was found guilty of assault and battery as well as cruelty to animals in connection with this event. An autopsy of the dog found that he died of blunt force trauma to the head.
Nanni, who is a paralegal, maintains that he continues to suffer emotional distress and should be compensated for that. He is asking for no less than $15,000, which is the minimum amount that will ensure the case will be heard in this particular court (Arlington Circuit Court).
So…it certainly is a sad case and one that should have never happened (Nanni evidently picked up the dog as he and Smith here fighting and Smith attempted to hit him with the board). Smith served 10 days in jail and was on probation for a year.
But, my bigger concern is the precedent that this case could set. Currently, in almost every state, emotional damages are not allowed to be collected by pet owners. Most states simply allow the owner to collect the “fair market value” of the pet. A recent case in New Jersey though did set another precedent stating that a pet’s “special subjective value” needs to be considered in custody cases. This has now opened up the doors that will move pets from “property” or chattel to another classification that we don’t even have yet (sentient property?).
Another case in California sided against an attorney who was suing a veterinarian for wrongful death of her Maltese. The court stated that pets were considered property and you can’t get damages for emotional distress or loss of companionship with property. Furthermore, parents can’t sue doctors accused of medical malpractice after the death of their child and expect damages for emotional distress either. In case after case across the United States, the courts normally find that there is no basis for damages based on emotional distress because (again) “pets are property”.
There are a few states that have broken away (Idaho, Kentucky, Florida, Alaska, New York, New Jersey and Hawaii) from this traditional view of pets as property, but they are still reluctant to award substantial damages based on emotional distress. Instead, the “intrinsic value” of the pet is calculated.
There is no doubt that pets are special to almost every one of us and we cherish their special value…but how do you adequately put a price tag on that in the event of the pet’s death? Should purebreds be worth more? Should dog owners get more money than cat owners? Should it depend on how much money you spent at the veterinary office in wellness care, etc?
The scary thing about this case is that a jury who awards Nanni a substantial amount of money will open the floodgates to a landslide of wrongful death lawsuits. Veterinarians will be forced to carry larger amounts of malpractice insurance simply because the insurance carriers won’t want to take these cases to court…they will settle out of court in order to “make things go away”. If veterinarians have to pay more for insurance, you can be very certain that those costs will be passed on in the forms of higher medical invoices.
And, as many here at MedHelp know, there are people who have a hard time paying for veterinary expenses, despite the fact that it is a true bargain when compared to human medicine. But rest assured, a case like this that sets a precedent will cause veterinary costs to increase.
So, what is the answer? Do we have a new classification for pets beyond property but short of human life? Should you be able to get emotional damages after the loss of your pet?
In a nutshell…here’s the story: Jeffrey Nanni and Maurice Smith were former domestic partners. Two years ago, Smith allegedly beat their 12 lb Chihuahua with a wooden board. Smith was found guilty of assault and battery as well as cruelty to animals in connection with this event. An autopsy of the dog found that he died of blunt force trauma to the head.
Nanni, who is a paralegal, maintains that he continues to suffer emotional distress and should be compensated for that. He is asking for no less than $15,000, which is the minimum amount that will ensure the case will be heard in this particular court (Arlington Circuit Court).
So…it certainly is a sad case and one that should have never happened (Nanni evidently picked up the dog as he and Smith here fighting and Smith attempted to hit him with the board). Smith served 10 days in jail and was on probation for a year.
But, my bigger concern is the precedent that this case could set. Currently, in almost every state, emotional damages are not allowed to be collected by pet owners. Most states simply allow the owner to collect the “fair market value” of the pet. A recent case in New Jersey though did set another precedent stating that a pet’s “special subjective value” needs to be considered in custody cases. This has now opened up the doors that will move pets from “property” or chattel to another classification that we don’t even have yet (sentient property?).
Another case in California sided against an attorney who was suing a veterinarian for wrongful death of her Maltese. The court stated that pets were considered property and you can’t get damages for emotional distress or loss of companionship with property. Furthermore, parents can’t sue doctors accused of medical malpractice after the death of their child and expect damages for emotional distress either. In case after case across the United States, the courts normally find that there is no basis for damages based on emotional distress because (again) “pets are property”.
There are a few states that have broken away (Idaho, Kentucky, Florida, Alaska, New York, New Jersey and Hawaii) from this traditional view of pets as property, but they are still reluctant to award substantial damages based on emotional distress. Instead, the “intrinsic value” of the pet is calculated.
There is no doubt that pets are special to almost every one of us and we cherish their special value…but how do you adequately put a price tag on that in the event of the pet’s death? Should purebreds be worth more? Should dog owners get more money than cat owners? Should it depend on how much money you spent at the veterinary office in wellness care, etc?
The scary thing about this case is that a jury who awards Nanni a substantial amount of money will open the floodgates to a landslide of wrongful death lawsuits. Veterinarians will be forced to carry larger amounts of malpractice insurance simply because the insurance carriers won’t want to take these cases to court…they will settle out of court in order to “make things go away”. If veterinarians have to pay more for insurance, you can be very certain that those costs will be passed on in the forms of higher medical invoices.
And, as many here at MedHelp know, there are people who have a hard time paying for veterinary expenses, despite the fact that it is a true bargain when compared to human medicine. But rest assured, a case like this that sets a precedent will cause veterinary costs to increase.
So, what is the answer? Do we have a new classification for pets beyond property but short of human life? Should you be able to get emotional damages after the loss of your pet?
Maybe so....legally you can't sue for 'emotional distress' over an item of property. But surely it would be possible to sue for mental cruelty? That someone's act -(ie cruelty and assault on the dog resulting in death) -when witnessed, caused severe emotional trauma which has seriously affected (Nanni's) quality of life/emotional stability? Surely someone could be sued for an act which caused mental trauma? (ie mental cruelty) I wonder if that would be possible?
Don't know. Just wondering.
Don't know. Just wondering.
This would open a whole can of worms and like you said increase cost for veterinary care. As someone with 7 dogs struggling to keep them healthy, I sure don't want to see this happen. I think anyone that intentionally hurts an animal should be punished with jail time or community service etc.
I have to agree with Mary. I think the offender should pay retribution (vet bills), jail time,community service and a fine. I do feel the laws and punishment for any kind of animal cruelty should be much more severe, but suing for mental distress is just looking for all the sue happy people to come out of the woodwork and would open up things for scams, looking to make money off hurting animals.
I agree with all the above said.. but also think a phyc evaluation and treatment out of their pocket and a ban on owning or caring for pets should be considered when dealing with the abuse of animals... lesa
I am of the opinion that (as with any issue), it is incumbent upon the legal system to look at the individual circumstances of each incident.
There is a great deal of difference between malpractice (which would be actionable) and maloccurrence (which is not, morally at least) in my considered opinion.
Our beloved little cat, April Dancer, died of anaphylactic shock at the vet's in October, 1992. It was a maloccurrence involving a mild sedative with which she had been dosed before. My wife and I cried hard over her...vet and staff were sore beset, also.
We suffered some great amount of emotional distress, but had no idea of pursuing damages. The vet neither charged us for the procedure nor ignored our deep upset; they even paid for Dancer to have an individual cremation.
The case quoted in the original post, nail the (expletives deleted) Chihuahua killer to the wall.
Pip
There is a great deal of difference between malpractice (which would be actionable) and maloccurrence (which is not, morally at least) in my considered opinion.
Our beloved little cat, April Dancer, died of anaphylactic shock at the vet's in October, 1992. It was a maloccurrence involving a mild sedative with which she had been dosed before. My wife and I cried hard over her...vet and staff were sore beset, also.
We suffered some great amount of emotional distress, but had no idea of pursuing damages. The vet neither charged us for the procedure nor ignored our deep upset; they even paid for Dancer to have an individual cremation.
The case quoted in the original post, nail the (expletives deleted) Chihuahua killer to the wall.
Pip
10 days in jail for killing an animal is what needs to change. The people who abuse know that "True Justice" is not served or in place when it comes to the killing of an animal or neglect/abuse, so the consequence of their actions is a nothing to them, because thats just what its always been - "a-nothing, a slap on the wrist" for the horror they commit.
In our house, our pets have always been ''family members," so as far as I am concerned if I were in the shoes of that man whose partner killed his dog - "emotional distress" is an understatement - though I realize the tragic event needs to be described "with words" in court, no way would words be able to describe how I would feel in that mans shoes.. its so sad, for the dog and the man.
How long would it take any animal lover to get the picture out of their mind of their poor pet dying such a cruel death, before they could have all the "good memories" of their dog come to the forefront of their mind and push out the sad, horrific, tragic ending of "their baby." I hope this man gets $15,000 at the very least.
I don't have to "wonder" if people would think twice before they killed an animal - IF they knew they would receive at the very least 2 years in jail, pay a huge fine, and lose the right of ever owning an animal and even lose the right of living with someone who owns an animal. Sound a little harsh for the crime committed? To some maybe, but not to me.
Sad subject, but it is something that needs alot of attention. Glad you opened this discussion.
MO
In our house, our pets have always been ''family members," so as far as I am concerned if I were in the shoes of that man whose partner killed his dog - "emotional distress" is an understatement - though I realize the tragic event needs to be described "with words" in court, no way would words be able to describe how I would feel in that mans shoes.. its so sad, for the dog and the man.
How long would it take any animal lover to get the picture out of their mind of their poor pet dying such a cruel death, before they could have all the "good memories" of their dog come to the forefront of their mind and push out the sad, horrific, tragic ending of "their baby." I hope this man gets $15,000 at the very least.
I don't have to "wonder" if people would think twice before they killed an animal - IF they knew they would receive at the very least 2 years in jail, pay a huge fine, and lose the right of ever owning an animal and even lose the right of living with someone who owns an animal. Sound a little harsh for the crime committed? To some maybe, but not to me.
Sad subject, but it is something that needs alot of attention. Glad you opened this discussion.
MO
It is ironic really. If a person does something that hurts another person, they are held accountable. Yet, the arguement that vets that do something wrong should not be held accountable because it will increase the cost of treatments is obscene. It is not the lawsuits that will increase the cost of care, it is the mistakes made by vets and those that allow those mistakes. You ask any pet owner, myself included, and they will tell you they would rather have their pet back than sue the vet. I took my dog to the vet with a kidney infection, he went into kidney failure, he was expressed 2 times in 52 hours and went into Congestive Heart Failure. Fluids were coming out his nose and mouth.
Post a Comment