What is the value of a dog?
"
Death of Lola the dachshund leads to thorny legal question"
Lola was a little hound of questionable pedigree who slept like a human, her head on the pillow and her body under the covers. She was jealous of laptop computers, because she was a laptop dog.
The mixed-breed dachshund was 8 years old when she died of renal failure. Lola’s owners allege that a popular Atlanta dog kennel gave Lola medication she wasn’t supposed to receive, ultimately leading to her death. The owners have sued, and that’s why this sad case with its very thorny question will come before the state’s highest court on Tuesday.
 |
| Lola |
16 comments:
If you don't have a receipt that you paid a lot of money, probably close to nothing.
As with most things, the problem is lawyers. The truth is that the value to the owners is enormous, but if lawyers can run with that, it will hurt everyone, and the average pet owners will suffer the most with restrictions and costs aimed at them. Give the loss a maximum legal value of $1,000 plus acquisition cost to keep the lawyers out of the trough. Allow some limited punitive damages for clear abuse or neglect, with those going to an animal rescue fund distributed randomly so no group gets involved in the case. The goal is to keep lawyers out, and still have an incentive to provide decent care.
Agree with Bags. Set a fine that would cover burial and end it there. I understand that a dog is not a toaster, but just because the family sunk tens of thousands of dollars into keeping the dog alive, doesn't mean others must pay those costs if they make any mistake. If the family wins, it will simply raise the cost and expense for every other pet owner, as business seek insurance to protect against these rent seekers.
Leland, the dog is a living being that is sentient. While pets are treated as property, we also have to recognize that neglect towards another living thing must be remunerated in appropriate and proportionate ways. If the kennel gave this dog medicine that caused it's renal failure which led to it's death, then they must be responsible for the damages to help repair the animals condition that they caused. If the family sunk 10's of thousands of dollars to keep the dog alive, because of the direct neglect of the kennel, then the kennel is liable. It's pretty simple in my book, the kennel damaged the property of the owners, in this case their dog. They must be held responsible.
However, to bags idea of leaving the lawyers out of it, I totally agree, but that would require that the legal limits be raised to a larger level and I think SCOTUS is going to determine that and then state will follow, hopefully. So if they raise the value to say $30k, and states follow, then in certain instances, this could move back to small claims without requiring an attorney. However, in a state like California, small claims, I believe is $5k before it goes to the the larger civil proceedings that would require an attorney.
Also, in that same vein, may I recommend pet insurance. It is has been essential for me and my family and it has come in handy for us.
When Quasy died last October, The Blonde was so distraught, she wouldn't get out of bed for days.
She knew how it would end.What Master Will said about lawyers seems to be the way to go.
Meth - It's up to $10,000 limit for a small claims case in Cali now. No attys allowed in small claims. I've been there to advise claims reps and friends while they make their case. It's a zoo. Everybody's shouting and interrupting and missing the point and failing to recognize obvious opportunities to persuade. You may, or may not, get justice, depending on whether the judge is a hack or not. Good luck with that!
It's pretty simple in my book, the kennel damaged the property of the owners, in this case their dog.
You make the dog sound like a toaster. The family's lawyer said the case isn't about money, but about treating the dog like a toaster. I'm treating the dog and its owners as bad precedent. The $57K is because dialysis for dogs is relatively rare, and will remain rare so long as lawyers are quick to sue for damage property with a bonus for sentimental value. Here's a site discussing the concept of pet dialysis. Pull quote:
Why is this so Long in Coming to Pets?
Part of the problem has been that dialysis machines are generally designed for human patients. The amount of blood that goes through the human dialysis machine is too large a blood loss for a veterinary patient to withstand so smaller machines had to be built. A veterinary dialysis machine had to be designed for patients as small as a 5 or 6-pound cat. Furthermore, a dialysis center requires specifically trained staff and 24-hour staffing. It was and is difficult to get such facilities financed. The procedure is still expensive and requires a dedicated owner but at least it is now an option.
That staff will make mistakes in the process. If precedent is set that those mistakes costs what is likely a year's salary for that tech, then you can be sure the process will remain rare and expensive for all.
Amartel said...
Meth - It's up to $10,000 limit for a small claims case in Cali now. No attys allowed in small claims. I've been there to advise claims reps and friends while they make their case. It's a zoo. Everybody's shouting and interrupting and missing the point and failing to recognize obvious opportunities to persuade. You may, or may not, get justice, depending on whether the judge is a hack or not. Good luck with that!
Thanks for the clarification. I've never had to use small claims, but back in the day in Calif it used to be $500 I think, but to see that it's $10k now is just great. It's gotta be a complete circus atmosphere there. The clownery must be amazing. You gotta tell some stories if you have them.
Sometimes, in the larger counties, the "judges" are actually lawyers acting pro tem. Often they're better than the actual judges. Small claims is not a popular judicial assignment. No publicity or glamor. It's where they send the idiots who can't hack it in probate. Anyway, it is a harrowing experience (drama drama) for an attorney to watch, a sort of Festival of Missed Opportunities.
I am a major hard ass about damages valuation. I say that to preface my opinion that this case is worth a helluva lot more than $1000. These people paid for a service. The tech effed it up and killed the family let in the process. This isn't a situation where the defense could say medicine isn't an exact science, sometimes the patient dies, standards and practices differ from county to county. No. The tech screwed the pooch. The family should get the costs of the service back plus general damages for the loss of their pet.
Leland,
Yeah, I can see how you could construe that I made the characterization makes it sound like it could be a toaster. But the lawyer is a dickhead. Of course it's about the money, even beyond the sentimental value of the dog.
The dog IS property but it's not like a car or a toaster where there is an objective valuation system in place on which to peg the damages. Like with a car you (at least in Cali) you get actual cash value, the amount it's worth when damaged, not new car value. The dog is like a family heirloom property valuation. It's a sentimental valuation. Now, true, these days that valuation could get out of control because people are increasingly viewing pets as family members. But vets profit from that! People spend a LOT more at the vet to keep animals alive that would, in earlier tougher times, have been put down or shot. The vet (its insurer) should pay.
Dogs are taken as property. Indeed you can fight breed bans by using property rights.
Amartel said...
Sometimes, in the larger counties, the "judges" are actually lawyers acting pro tem. Often they're better than the actual judges. Small claims is not a popular judicial assignment. No publicity or glamor. It's where they send the idiots who can't hack it in probate. Anyway, it is a harrowing experience (drama drama) for an attorney to watch, a sort of Festival of Missed Opportunities.
Hmmm, now I can see why Judge Judy is so cranky.
The vet (its insurer) should pay.
Except, in this case, it wasn't a vet but a boarding house. Then again, my comment did confuse the issue.
I completely agree that the family gets the money back for what they gave the boarding house. Certainly money to replace the toaster, err dog. But how about basing the penalty on the revenue of the boarding house, not the revenue of the vet? How about the revenue of the facility for the number of days the dog was there?
Post a Comment