Pet Damages

Summary:

A new movement in tort law seeks to provide money damages to persons losing a companion animal. These non-compensatory damages are highly controversial, and spark a debate as to whether such awards are the best thing for the animals—or for the lawyers. Would a change in the property status of companion animals better solve this important and emotional legal question?

Summary:

This Comment attempts to resolve the considerable confusion in the law of acquisition by find of property as it relates to companion animals. First, the development of the theories of the common law and legislative solutions to lost and estray property will be examined to provide a legal foundation for analysis of lost property and animals. Then, the focus will turn to the public policy arguments that courts across the country are relying on in their decisions as new common law is made in judicial resolutions of the competing issues. Finally, the Author provides a reasonable solution in light of legislative and judicial action.

Summary:

Should the law treat dogs as vicious animals or loving family companions? This article analyzes common law strict liability as applied to dog bite cases and the shift to modern strict liability statutes, focusing on the defense of provocation. It discusses the inconsistency in the modern law treatment of strict liability in dog bite cases. The article then resolves why negligence is the proper cause of action in dog bite cases. The Author draws comparisons among dog owner liability in dog bite cases, parental liability for a child’s torts, and property owner liability for injuries caused by his property. The Author concludes by proposing a negligence standard to be applied in dog bite cases.

Summary:

Is a pet a “product”? A pet is a product for purposes of products liability law in some states, and as this article will show, the remaining states should follow suit. Every year, thousands of “domesticated” animals are sold to consumers who are uninformed as to the animal’s propensities or to the proper method of animal care. In some instances, these animals are unreasonably dangerous in that they spread disease to humans or attack, and possibly kill, unwitting victims. Improper breeding and training techniques and negligence in sales have led to horrific injury. This comment will demonstrate how merely considering pets as products opens up new theories of liability for the plaintiff’s lawyer, offering a deeper base of defendants who are both morally and legally at fault. From the standpoint of a consumer advocate and with concern for both human and animal welfare, the author proposes employing products liability theory to the sale of domesticated animals. By making sellers of “defective” animals accountable for personal injury that these animals cause, the quality of the animals bred and sold will likely improve. Where it does not improve and injury results, the victim may have recourse beyond the confines of contract remedies. Products liability theory is a lawful and needed method for preventing future harm and providing for a healthier human and animal kingdom.

Summary: Much has been written in recent years regarding the important role pets play in our society and the legal consequences that have developed from that relationship. Both our courts and legislatures have recognized, in certain circumstances, the ability of a pet owner to recover from a wrongdoer in the event of negligent or intentional conduct that results in the death or injury of a companion animal. However, securing a damages award and recovering on a judgment secured may present the aggrieved pet owner with two entirely different challenges. Liability insurance coverage is critical to the latter concern. Although results can vary considerably by jurisdiction, questions such as the definition of covered damages and the operation of the intentional acts exclusion are likely to play a key role in any analysis. This paper provides a broad overview of some of the larger issues regarding coverage applicability, and illustrates the possible application of these principals by applying them to the facts of cases which have found damages for pet owners where their animals have been injured or killed as a result of negligent, reckless or intentional conduct.

Summary:

This comment investigates the factual bases of arguments from the veterinary community and of those that support increasing the malpractice liability of veterinarians. Combining law and economics theory with basic mathematics to evaluate the validity of these positions, it then suggests specific measures for legislatively addressing those parties' concerns.