Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| NONECONOMIC DAMAGE AWARDS IN VETERINARY MALPRACTICE: USING THE HUMAN MEDICAL EXPERIENCE AS A MODEL TO PREDICT THE EFFECT OF NONECONOMIC DAMAGE AWARDS ON THE PRACTICE OF COMPANION ANIMAL VETERINARY MEDICINE | Steve Barghusen | 17 Animal L. 13 (2010) |
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. |
| Pets: Property and the Paradigm of Protection | Brooke J. Bearup | 3 J. Animal L. 173 (2007) |
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. |
| Valuing Companion Animals in Wrongful Death Cases: A Survey of Current Court and Legislative Actions and a Suggestion for Valuing Pecuniary Loss of Companionship | Elaine T. Byszewski | 9 Animal L. 215 (2003) |
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. |
| 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. |
| The Economic Value of Companion Animals: A Legal and Anthropological Argument for Special Valuation | Geordie Duckler | 8 Animal L. 199 (2001) |
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. |
| There Are No Bad Dogs, Only Bad Owners: Replacing Strict Liability With A Negligence Standard In Dog Bite Cases | Lynn A. Epstein | 13 Animal Law 129 (2006) |
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. |
| Resolving Confusion in Pet Owner Tort Cases: Recognizing Pets' Anthropomorphic Qualities Under a Property Classification | Lynn A. Epstein | 26 SILULJ 31 (Fall, 2001) |
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. |
| Overview of Damages for Injury to Animals - Pet losses | David Favre | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
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. |
| 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. |
| COMPANION ANIMAL | Sebastien Gay | 17 Animal L. 77 (2010) |
This Article presents a theory of the economic value of companion animal life. Under the existing United States torts regime, the standard damages award available to an owner for an action arising from a companion animal death is its fair market value. This approach implicitly assumes that pet owners are irrational, given that they generally invest more in their pets than the animal’s fair market value. This Article suggests that, based on an economic model that conceptualizes companion animals as an employee-investment hybrid, the value of a companion animal is higher than its fair market value. This model has implications for economic damages calculations in wrongful death lawsuits and for companion animal welfare. |