Pet Damages

Summary:

This article explores the various legal claims which can be brought against a pet owner for injuries that his or her pet has caused. It also reviews defenses that pet owners can assert.

Summary:

The law in United States categorizes animals as personal property. As a result, recovery of damages for the loss of a companion animal is oftentimes the fair market value. This inflexible approach to companion animals fails to distinguish between personal property such as a chair and a beloved pet. Some state court 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 concerning recovery of damages in cases involving harm to companion animals and the reasoning behind why courts should acknowledge such a recovery.

Summary:

A discussion of the state of the Swiss law on the issue of damages for companion animals after the changes of the 2003 legislation.

Summary:

This paper explores the Fourth Amendment rights of a dog owner when law enforcement executes his/her canine companion. This paper is framed around the experiences of St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana residents who evacuated to Beauregard Middle School during Hurricane Katrina.

Summary:

Because it is exceedingly difficult to measure the value of “companionship” in determining damages for the loss of a companion animal in wrongful death cases, courts and legislatures have struggled to come up with a realistic method of assessment. This article suggests a straightforward “investment approach” to estimate the minimum pecuniary value, including companionship value, that human guardians place on their companion animals. Significantly, the investment approach provides a more accurate assessment of companion animal value, which serves tort system goals of efficient compensation for loss and deterrence of future harm to companion animals.

Summary:

Mr. Duckler delves into valuation issues that arise in the context of recovery of non-economic damages for death and injury to companion animals. He argues that the special nature of companion animals in society necessitates an assigned monetary worth to such animals that is distinct from and exceeds mere market value. As support for this contention, Mr. Duckler provides relevant legal, sociological, and anthropological analyses.

Summary:

This Article first provides an overview of the philosophical basis of the allocation (or non-allocation) of moral status to nonhuman animals considering historical and modern views of animals. Second, it analyzes the legal status of animals under the current system and discusses the idea of extending legal 'personhood' to such animals. Next, it considers the common law and statutory basis for the current valuation of companion animals. Finally, this Article supports and promotes the idea that there is a rational basis for changing the way that companion animals should be valued by the legal system and recommends the adoption of statutory provisions to promote consistency and certainty in these cases.

Summary:

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.

Summary:

This article explores the various methods courts have used to determine value when assessing damages in pet injury or death cases. In doing so, it focuses on the conflicts that exist between opinions of older courts and more modern courts in determining damages, and how these conflicts have highlighted the transition of a dog's role in society. Finally, the article discusses solutions to these problems, including exploring exemplary statutes in Illinois and Kentucky, along with other solutions that would significantly reduce the stress faced by pet owners and courts when placed in these positions.

Summary:

This Note introduces a new approach for resolving the issue of inadequate compensation for pet loss by arguing for the adoption of a new classification of personal property called inimitable property. The new categorization takes into consideration the live, conscious, and unique qualities of pets that distinguish them from other sorts of inanimate property. Part II outlines the historical origins and subsequent shifts in the importance of domestic animals and their status in the law. Part III highlights the existing arguments and suggestions for change and addresses why they ultimately fail. Part IV introduces the requirements and characteristics of “inimitable property” and explains why it could work if applied to domestic pets by courts or the legislature. Finally, Section V briefly reviews and concludes the Note.