Canadian Court Recognizes the Value of Your Pet
We have discussed on numerous occasions, here and here that most courts view your pet, not as a friend, a family member or companion, but simply as another piece of personal property.
Perhaps our neighbors to the North have a better idea.
According to the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association the case of Ferguson v. Birchmount Boarding Kennels Ltd. (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 681 (Div. Ct.) may lead the way into a new arena of legal thinking.
In Ferguson;
"the plaintiffs boarded their dog at a kennel while they were on vacation. The dog escaped from the enclosed play area by squeezing between 2 boards in a fence, and was never found. Mrs. Ferguson was emotionally distraught when she heard the news. She suffered from insomnia and nightmares, which required her to take time off work. The Fergusons sued the kennel for damages. The court held that the kennel had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the fence was secure. Its negligence amounted to a fundamental breach of the boarding contract, such that the kennel could not rely on a waiver of liability that the owners had signed. The Fergusons were awarded $2527, which included $1417 in general damages for pain and suffering associated with the loss of the dog..."
Upon appeal, the higher Court agreed with the lower one and stated;
"that a pet is not considered in law to be the owner’s property (or chattel), so as to preclude an award for pain and suffering upon its loss. Mental distress, if proven to exist, can be compensated for by an award of damages..."
Although this one case stands in opposition to a long line of decisions, perhaps it is the beginning of the recognition that pets are truly not personal property to their owners.
Maybe more U.S. courts will follow this lead of evaluating your pets.
http://www.pettrustlawblog.com/admin/trackback/74080
