Does Your Dog Have A Soul?
Do you believe that your pet has a soul?
According to the New York Daily News, attorney Susan Chana Lask has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a pet owner and asked the court to make that exact determination.
Under New York law, like almost every other state, a pet is only considered to be “personal property.”
Dog owner Elena Zakharova contends that pets are living creatures that feel love and pain.
So when the pet store sold her a dog with severe physical handicaps, she filed suit and requested money damages for vet bills and also for pain and suffering on behalf of her dog.
Lask contends that pets should be treated the same as human beings in this context.
Many animal owners believe that their pets have souls.
This is an interesting concept, that will be sorted out by the courts, as animal rights continue to evolve.
Your thoughts?
What is the Guardian Campaign?
A reader recently asked me about the Guardian Campaign.
According to its website, Guardian Campaign “was created in 1999 by In Defense of Animals (IDA) to reflect and nurture the growing sentiment that "owner" does not reflect the bond that develops between people and animals. IDA believes "guardian" denotes a higher level of responsibility, caring and respect toward the animals with whom families share their lives.”
Almost two dozen cities and the State of Rhode Island have enacted legislation that interchanges the terms owner and guardian for companion animals.
Typical language will state then when used in reference to any person or persons caring animals, ‘guardian’ is equivalent to owner, a guardian shall have the same rights and responsibilities or an ‘owner’, and both terms shall be used interchangeably.
Most legal experts agree that the language does not change the legal status of the animals, in that most states still consider companion animals to be personal property.
The Need To Revisit A Replevin Action For Your Pets
We recently received another inquiry regarding the use of a replevin action for a pet.
A writ of replevin is a prejudgment process ordering the seizure or attachment of an alleged illegal taking or wrongfully withheld property, goods or chattle (any kind of personal property).
The action of replevin dates all the way back to the common laws of old England and was first used in the thirteenth century. This type of writ is commonly used to take property from an individual wrongfully in possession of that specific property and return it to its rightful owner.
We have discussed on many occasions the evolution of the status of pets and companion animals. They originally were clearly identified as the “personal property” of their owners in the eyes of the Court. But now, in most circumstances, they have been elevated to a higher position.
In many situations, the attorney for the owners have determined that it is necessary to file an action to demand the return of “personal property” if a pet has been wrongfully taken or detained.
There may be no other legal remedy available.
Reader Needs Help To Replevin Her Dog...
Any attorneys in Maryland that want to reach out to help this pet owner that sent me this message?
"I am having trouble finding the help and answers to my problem. I have talked to several local lawyers to no avail. I am wanting to seek custody back of a puppy. I sold the puppy to a "friend"/coworker. I wrote up a contract with specifics on payment plan and the puppy starting shots, etc. One month later, no record of shots were received by me, and repeatedly asked new owner for said records. I did file a writ of replevin, and had new owner served by sheriff. Before the hearing, me and new owner made arrangements to start shots, etc.
Needless to say, I let my guard down and trusted that follow-up boosters and rabies were to be completed. I did withdrawal case as I truly thought new owner would be compliant. Well, these were not done and I again contacted new owner. I am not happy with their excuses and no proof of shots for puppy. I did however, contact last place of original shot, and received a record of said puppy starting these shots again. To date, I have not received copy of booster shot or rabies shot for puppy. I did send a certified letter to person notifying them of my intentions to seek custody again.
The courts here really have no idea how to handle a case like this, I am at my wit's end here, this puppy's health and life can be at risk here. I have talked to a few lawyers here about breach of contract, etc, and I am getting nowhere. It is getting really frustrating and each day that goes by, this puppy is at risk.
If you have any advice or need more info, please contact me. There is a little more to story, but trying to keep it short."
Contact me for the name and number if you are interested….
Florida Veterinarian Proposes Legislation For Loss of Pets
Kenneth Newman, DVM, operates an emergency hospital for animals in St. Petersburg, Florida.
He has also written proposed legislation entitled, Gracie’s Law, to honor Gracie, his deceased Labrador retriever.
Gracie was killed by a negligent driver who crushed Gracie and Dr. Newman between two cars.
The proposed Florida law would allow the owner of a pet that is killed through a deliberate act of malice, or through an act of negligence, to be able to obtain compensation for loss of companionship of the pet and for pain and suffering.
The current law, in almost all jurisdictions, is that pets are still considered to be the personal property of the owner.
If a pet is injured or killed, the owner is only entitled to recover the depreciated value or “cost” of the animal.
Dr. Newman wants that law to reflect the changing attitude of pet owners.
You can visit his site here.
Is A Guide Dog Property Or A Pet?
I recently was asked if there is a difference as to whether or not a guide dog in training, was afforded the same statutory rights, protections and privileges as a guide dog.
Interestingly enough, nearly two years ago, I wrote about this same issue.
Every state has a least one statue regarding the use and protection of guide dogs or service animals as they are often called.
For example, California law is clear in that “Housing providers have an affirmative obligation to engage in an interactive process with a tenant or prospective tenant who requests that his/her service animal be permitted to reside with him/her in the subject housing accommodation and provide that reasonable accommodation, absent a specific legal justification for not granting the request.”
This led me to do a little research on Florida Statutes.
We have discussed many time of the current dichotomy in the courts between the treatment of pets as simply personal property and as a member of the family with emotional value, as well.
Florida Statute 413.081. Interference with or injury to a service animal; penalties; restitution, provides an interesting insight into that argument in that:
"(2) A person who, with reckless disregard, injures or kills, or permits a dog that he or she owns or is in the immediate control of to injure or kill, a service animal commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) A person who intentionally injures or kills, or permits a dog that he or she owns or is in the immediate control of to injure or kill, a service animal commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4)(a) A person who is convicted of a violation of this section, in addition to any other penalty, must make full restitution for all damages that arise out of or are related to the offense, including incidental and consequential damages incurred by the service animal's user.
(b) Restitution includes the value of the service animal; replacement and training or retraining expenses for the service animal and the user; veterinary and other medical and boarding expenses for the service animal; medical expenses for the user; and lost wages or income incurred by the user during any period that the user is without the services of the service animal."
It is interesting that this statute provides for additional compensation to the animal owner, in addition to the actual value (personal property) of the animal.
Pet Custody Dispute Heads to Texas Court
There are probably more pets in this country than there are children.
Therefore, it is no coincidence that pet custody cases are on the rise.
We have discussed many times, such as here and here that although pet owners consider their animals a part of the family, most courts still consider them only to be personal property.
Here is another reported case involving a“custody “dispute over a pet
The Southeast Texas Record recently reported on a custody story. According to reporter, David Yates, the facts are as follows:
" A run-of-the-mill family feud has spilled into the civil realm over custody of a pet.
Given power of attorney by his father, a disgruntled brother has filed suit against his sister. The issue: the sister allegedly made off with the father's dog, Little Vicky.
Seeking punitive and mental anguish damages, J.W. Rogers sued his dog-nabbing sister, Lauren Jean Freedman, on June 9.
On Father's Day six years ago, J.W. Rogers and his wife Debbie gave his father Victor Rogers a dog named "Little Vicky," according to the suit.
"Little Vicky became a loyal and trusted companion and informal therapy dog to Victor Rogers," the suit states. "Little Vicky routinely slept next to Victor Rogers or bedside. Little Vicky also became somewhat of a watch dog for the household at night."
In his suit, J.W. goes on to say Victor is an animal lover and Little Vicky was a source of happiness for him until his sister robbed her father's happiness when she came to visit him at his Beaumont home during the 2008 Passover holiday.
"When Defendant Freedman returned to California, she took Victor Rogers' dog with her without permission or approval," the suit says.
"In fact, perhaps knowing she was acting inappropriately, she simply left a voicemail for J.W. Rogers telling him she was taking Little Vicky. Little Vicky is greatly missed by Victor Rogers. J.W. Rogers has made numerous attempts to have the dog returned to his father, all to no avail."
J.W. says he is entitled to recover conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, actual damages and punitive damages from his sister for her wrongful behavior.
He is demanding a jury trial..."
It will be interesting to follow this case and the decision that is rendered in this fact situation.
It may be another small step in the evolving law of pets as personal property.
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.
