[News] Courts Ponder Value of Man's Best Friend

[fasteddie]

NORTHFIELD, Vt. - When Denis and Sarah Scheele's dog was fatally shot after wandering onto a man's property, they sued — and not just for damages. The couple also wanted compensation for their emotional distress and loss of companionship.

Their case is one of a growing number around the country that asks courts to recognize what dog owners already do: that man's best friend is worth more than its retail price.

"When you lose something like that, the loss is immeasurable," said Sarah Scheele, 47. "You can't just go to a pet store and buy another animal. It doesn't replace the family member that was lost."

Unable to have children, the Scheeles got two dogs instead. They fed them human food, brushed their teeth and put coats on them when it rained.

The Scheeles say the death of Shadow, a shepherd-chow-spaniel mix they called their "little boy," entitles them to damages beyond the direct expenses typically awarded in such cases.

Historically, courts have allowed people suing over the death of an animal to collect such expenses as its purchase price and veterinary bills.

"Courts look at market value, and I don't think that reflects society's values," said the couple's attorney, Heidi Groff.

The Scheeles' case began in July 2003, when they drove from their home in Annapolis, Md., to Vermont to watch his aunt and uncle renew their wedding vows. They planned to leave the dogs in their truck during the service.

They got to the church early, so they let the dogs loose, a violation of the leash law in Northfield, which is 10 miles south of Montpelier.

The dogs wandered into Lewis Dustin's yard. Dustin, 74, who had been squirrel hunting that day, had a combination BB and pellet gun at the ready.

According to the Scheeles, Shadow didn't menace Dustin. But Dustin fired a pellet at Shadow in hopes of scaring him off.

Instead, the shot penetrated the dog's chest and severed an aorta. Shadow died en route to a veterinarian's office.

Dustin later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of animal cruelty. He was given a year of probation and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and pay $4,000 in restitution.

A judge ruled in the Scheeles' civil suit that there is no provision in Vermont law that would allow them to recover damages for the loss of Shadow's companionship or for emotional distress.

The couple plan to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"What we're trying to do is expand the law to recognize that the companionship between a dog and its owner is such that the owner is entitled to compensation" when that relationship is destroyed, said David Putter, an attorney hired to help with the appeal.

Though the attorneys acknowledge it's a novel legal theory, noting that people can't sue for loss of companionship in the deaths of best friends or domestic partners, they want an exception for four-legged friends.

In recent years, trial courts in Florida, New York, Illinois, California, Oregon and Washington have carved out a category for pets that is somewhere between property and people.

An appeals court in Washington state last May created a new tort called "malicious injury to a pet," which allows someone to collect emotional distress damages. The case involved three teenagers who doused a cat with gasoline and lit it on fire. The cat was euthanized.

Animal law expert Geordie Duckler said appellate courts have lagged society at large in recognizing the relationship between a pet and its owner.

"As soon as some good appellate panel (of judges) recognizes this special relationship that people have had for a long time with their pets, I think it will be like the flip of a light switch," and the law nationwide will change, said Duckler, a Portland, Ore., lawyer.

For his part, Dustin believes the issue has been overblown.

"These people think that this dog is a human being," he said. "It's not a human being. And that dog was trespassing."

Dustin said he can't afford a lawyer and would take whatever comes as the litigation continues.

"If they want to put me in jail, that's what they can do," he said. "I'm not going to pay them anything because I don't owe them anything. All I'm going to do is go to court and go through the motions."

Sarah Scheele said she and her husband are pursing the case to honor Shadow.

"We're not in it for the money," she said. "We want to get national legislation that will recognize pets as companions and not just property."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061204/...animal_justice

[JESSY_RN2B]

Wow, this really saddens me. I totally agree with this couple. I pray that they get to change that law so shadow may RIP.

[bettyeanne]

I think it's so sad that people can't seem to understand the relationship between a pet and it's family! This is such a terribly horrifying story. I think it's OK that there are people in this world who don't like animals .... they are entitled, just as we who love our pet beyond reason! Everyone has their own passion and we should respect that. However, there needs to be more stringent laws put into place to protect these pets that we love when we cannot!! They cannot speak for themselves so it's up to us!!

[blackwidow]

Ok, I totally agree that some people don't care for animals and some of us love them beyond reason...but...

Where does the dog's owner's responsibility begin and end in all this? What if Dustin had had his Yorkie in the back yard???

Don't you think the couple had MUCH of the liability in this case because they let Shadow run around off-leash?

The article doesn't say, but was this a place they'd been before? I would never let my dog loose to run around a strange town. But I've seen other people do it...

Just my thoughts....

[cekaai]

Originally Posted by blackwidow

Ok, I totally agree that some people don't care for animals and some of us love them beyond reason...but...

Where does the dog's owner's responsibility begin and end in all this? What if Dustin had had his Yorkie in the back yard???

Don't you think the couple had MUCH of the liability in this case because they let Shadow run around off-leash?

The article doesn't say, but was this a place they'd been before? I would never let my dog loose to run around a strange town. But I've seen other people do it...

Just my thoughts....

I understand what you're saying but this man was convicted of animal cruelty, if the dog was menacing or threatening he would be in the right to shoot the dog. The authorities obviously felt he had no right to shoot the dog. The dog was no threat to him or anything on his property. This case is about people who maliciously cause injury or even death to an animal.

[blackwidow]

Not so sure I agree with

This case is about people who maliciously cause injury or even death to an animal.

The article says

Dustin fired a pellet at Shadow in hopes of scaring him off.

So he wasn't trying to kill the dog.

Stray dogs can do alot of damage, even maim or kill livestock. Lots of people who live in rural areas shoot pellet guns at strays hoping to run them off.

I think that's different than when your dog is under your control and a person or another dog hurts them.

[cekaai]

A warning shot does not impact the chest, as it did for this dog. The man may not have meant to kill the dog but he meant to injure the animal, hence the charges. He plead guilty to animal cruelty which most likely means his original charges were more severe. The authorities most likely felt he did not have just cause in shooting the dog period, if he did they would not have charged him with a crime.

[Jenn218]

Wow! So sad........I see both views (to some intent).

I hope the courts do see that most pets are more than pets....and those to lose a loved one, has the same impact as loosing a human family member. I would love to see that come about in the courts.....some people just have no idea and they just view them as a pet that can be replaced.....that just isn't so.

Regarding the man who shot the dog.......I do think the family is liable to their dogs out roaming around. A person who sees a "stray" dog in their yard, does not know if the dog is mean or will attack or do harm to their own pet or children or livestock. I do not think the man should have shot the dog....you can fire a shot, but not at an animal......BB guns and Pellet guns should normally do no harm (or min. harm) to an animal.

Either way, it is a very sad story, but I hope it ends up w/ a better understanding in our court systems what these "animals" truly mean to us, their family.