Results
| Title | Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| "Live Animals": Towards Protection for Pets and Livestock in Contracts for Carriage | Erin Sheley | 3 J. Animal L. 59 (2007) | This article maps the current legal and logistical circumstances of animals in transportation, with a focus on commercial airlines and meat industry trucking practices, and proposes novel ways of utilizing the existing common law of contract adjudication to win stronger protections for such animals, even absent the fulfilled dream of statutory reform. In particular, it argues that courts should utilize two well-established doctrines of contractual interpretation--unconscionability and unenforceability as against public policy--to arrive at more humane results for animals. |
||
| "Man's Best Friend:" Property or Family Member? An Examination of the Legal Classification of Companion Animals and its Impact | William C. Root | 47 Vill. L. Rev. 423 (2002) | This article examines the historical treatment of companion animals (pets) under the law as property or chattel, despite the degree of importance most Americans place upon their relationship with their pets. In cases of willful or negligent injury or death to these animals, courts have typically awarded market value damages, which, in most cases are nominal. The author proposes that the characterization of animals as mere property should change to reflect societal views, and punitive damages should be assessed by court where injury to the animal is willful, wanton or reckless. |
||
| A Factual Account of Immi's Shooting | Pamela L. Roudebush | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following excerpt from an appellate court opinion contains the actual facts that occurred when a 3-year old Rotweiller named Immi was unreasonably shot to death by a police officer. |
||
| An Animal is Not an Ipod | Diane Sullivan & Holly Vietzke | 4 Journal of Animal Law 41 (2008) | The law in United States categorizes animals as personal property. As a result, recovery of damages for the loss of a companion animal is often times the fair market value. This inflexible approach to companion animals fails to distinguish between personal property such as a chair and a beloved pet. Needless to say, awarding damages at fair market value serves as little or no deterrence for the tortfeasor. This is especially true in cases where the companion animal lacks pedigree or special training. However, some decisions have authorized human guardians of companion animals to plead and recover the “unique value” of the companion animal. Such decisions reflect a shift in the court’s view of companion animals, which acknowledges public policy concerns for the guardian of the companion animal. This article discusses the law in United States on companion animals and proposes legislative action in the state of Florida for the recovery of the “loss of companionship” for owners of companion animals. |
||
| ANIMAL CONSORTIUM | David S. Favre and Thomas Dickinson | 84 Tenn. L. Rev. 893 (2017) | This article will show that sufficient relational interest can exist between a human and companion animal and that this interest is widely accepted in our culture; therefore, financial recovery for the disruption of this relationship is a fair burden to place upon actors in today's world. This proposal does not seek to give any legal rights to companion animals; instead, this is a proposal to allow the law to acknowledge the depth and reality of the bond between humans and animals that exists in millions of families across the country. First, this article sets out the existing categories of damage for recovery when a defendant's tortious actions result in the death of a companion animal. Integral to this discussion is the reality that companion animals are considered property. Courts most often are unwilling to extend financial recovery to include the emotional loss of the owner of an animal. Second, this article will examine the history of the concept of consortium to show how the legal system has come to accept that the compensable harm is not limited to economic consequences, nor is it limited to husband and wife relationships. Third, this article will present information to support the position that companion animals are emotionally and psychologically important to the human members of many families. Fourth, this article will show that animals have already jumped out of the property box in a number of fact patterns, and therefore, it is appropriate to raise their status in this context as well. Fifth, this article will consider the application of the concept of animal consortium in detail as an extension of the common law cause of action. Finally, acknowledging some of the difficulties that courts may have in implementing this proposal, a legislative draft is proposed to accomplish the recovery sought by this article. | ||
| Animals as More Than 'Mere Things,' but Still Property: A Call for Continuing Evolution of the Animal Welfare Paradigm | Richard L. Cupp, Jr. | University of Cincinnati Law Review, Forthcoming; Pepperdine University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2788309 | Abstract: Survival of the animal welfare paradigm (as contrasted with a rights-based paradigm creating legal standing for at least some animals) depends on keeping pace with appropriate societal evolution favoring stronger protections for animals. Although evolution of animal welfare protection will take many forms, this Article specifically addresses models for evolving conceptualizations of animals’ property status within the context of animal welfare. For example, in 2015 France amended its Civil Code to change its description of companion animals and some other animals from movable property to “living beings gifted with sensitivity,” while maintaining their status as property. This Article will evaluate various possible approaches courts and legislatures might adopt to highlight the distinctiveness of animals’ property status as compared to inanimate property. Although risks are inherent, finding thoughtful ways to improve or elaborate on some of our courts’ and legislatures’ animals-as-property characterizations may encourage more appropriate protections where needed under the welfare paradigm, and may help blunt arguments that animals are “mere things” under the welfare paradigm. Animals capable of pain or distress are significantly different than ordinary personal property, and more vigorously emphasizing their distinctiveness as a subset of personal property would further both animal welfare and human interests. | ||
| Brief Introduction to Pet Damages | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This article provides a brief overview of the issues relevant to damages associated with pet loss or injury. Included is a brief discussion of the traditional property status of pets and an examination of typical awards in cases involving injury to pets. |
||
| Brief Summary of Dog Auctions and Retail Rescue | Kayla Venckauskas | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This brief summary explores the recent changes with respect to dog auctions and the role of rescues. The limited federal and state oversight is discussed as well as new retail pet store bans that have inadvertently fueled "retail rescue" phenomenon. | ||
| Brief Summary of International Comparative Animal Cruelty Laws | Paige M. Tomaselli | Animal Legal & Historical Center | Summary comparing the laws of the US and Europe on the subject of companion animals and confinement farming, including slaughter and transport. |
||
| Brief Summary of Pet Damages | Angie Vega | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This brief summary explores the issue of damages for loss or injury to pets. Despite the value most people assign to pets in their families, the legal system considers pets as personal property. The scope of damages available is also affected by this legal classification, as noneconomic or emotional damages such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of companionship are usually not recoverable for harm or destruction of property. As it stands in most states, fair market value is the approach used by most courts. |