Results

Many scholars have argued for and against the recovery of noneconomic damages in cases of veterinary malpractice involving companion animals. However, scholarship has not focused on the results that allowing noneconomic damages may have on the structure of companion animal veterinary practices. This Article uses the human medical field as a predictive model to explore the potential effects of granting noneconomic damages in veterinary malpractice cases. The author argues that awarding damages substantial enough to encourage increased litigation will result in significant changes in the field of veterinary medicine. Allowing for recovery of noneconomic damages will make veterinary care more expensive and will not significantly deter negligent malpractice. Individuals will pay more for veterinary care or companion animals will receive less care if high noneconomic damage awards become the norm in veterinary malpractice cases. Although these changes will affect all veterinary facilities, ironically, high quality veterinary facilities may be more likely to be sued than their lower quality counterparts. The author concludes by discussing alternatives to malpractice litigation, the human-animal bond, and the possible factors contributing to the high cost of human medicine in the United States.

This overview describes the state of law with regard to damages for injury or loss of pets. Included in the discussion is an examination of the traditional market valuation of pets, punitive damages, consequential damages, and damages related to emotional distress.

Overview of the comparison between US animal cruelty laws and those in Europe. Specifically, laws of the US, EU, Germany, Norway and Switzerland are addressed. The comparison is based around companion animal and confinement farming laws, transportation and slaughter.

This outline provides links to the cases that relate to the sale of companion animals. While not an exhaustive list, it does provide a sampling of the case law in the area.

This article touches on the evolution of property classifications through history and suggests that the time has arrived for society to re-conceptualize its view on animals as personal property. Re-categorizing animals as equivalent, sentient beings has the potential to affect current search and seizure practices under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. This article proposes policy changes that could significantly benefit neglected and abused animals, while still recognizing the fundamental liberty interests of pet owners.

This alphabetical topical index provides links to the summaries of various pleadings. You may then click on the case name, which will bring you to a summary and listing of the available pleading documents for that specific case.

Ms. Waisman and Ms. Newell discuss the recent legislative actions regarding recovery of non-economic damages for companion animals. They explore the history of human loss of consortium and companionship damages, the role nonhuman animals play in human lives, and propose legislation that will adequately reflect nonhuman animals' place in our society.

The author examines the important role pets play in our lives in contrast with their nominal assessed market value by courts. The author then provides a uniform suggestion that will enable courts to standardize an owner's pet loss claim. Courts should continue to classify pets as property, yet relax the classification standard to permit a flexible market value analysis that includes the right to assert a punitive damage claim as a means of providing adequate and fair recompense to the grieving pet owner.