Pet Damages

Displaying 41 - 50 of 353
Titlesort ascending Summary
The Golden Retriever Rule: Alaska's Identity Privilege for Animal Adoption Agencies and for Adoptive Animal Owners


In this Comment, the authors examine recent national and Alaskan developments regarding a limited testimonial privilege for animal adoption agencies and adoptive owners. Unlike most testimonial privileges, this new privilege e did not exist at common law and has only a limited foundation in statutes or rules of evidence. The authors conclude by noting the effect this privilege has on replevin and conversion cases involving lost animals that have been adopted by new owners.
The Future of Veterinary Malpractice Liability in the Care of Companion Animals
The Economic Value of Companion Animals: A Legal and Anthropological Argument for Special Valuation
THE ANIMAL COMPANION PUZZLE: A WORTH UNKNOWN THOUGH HEIGHT TAKEN
Terrence Ing v. American Airlines, a corporation doing business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive


This California complaint arose from the death of plaintiff's dog while in American Airlines' care. The dog flew from New York to San Francisco in the cargo area. Upon arrival, the dog was alive, but in physical distress. Plaintiff raised eleven causes of action, including gross negligence, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others.
Ten Hopen v. Walker


Defendant was convicted of wilfully and maliciously killing a dog.  On appeal, the court found the instructions proper and held that a plaintiff could recover exemplary damages in addition to market value as compensation, not as punitive damages.  The court also found that the killing of a dog is not justified by trespass because there are remedies for destruction of property by animals of another.

Survey of Damages Measures Recognized in Negligence Cases Involving Animals This article will first articulate the various ways in which courts and legislatures have resolved negligence cases involving plaintiffs seeking emotion-based damages for harm done to their companion animals. Second, this article will provide an overview of the public policy issues surrounding recovery for emotional damages in tort cases involving animals. Finally, this article will explain how allowing non-economic damages in companion animal cases involving mere negligence would be unsound public policy and an unwise departure from established law.
Strickland v. Medlen


The Supreme Court of Texas considers petitioner's appeal from the court of appeals' decision holding that a dog owner may recover intangible loss-of-companionship damages in the form of intrinsic or sentimental-value property damages. The facts underlying the action involved the improper euthanization of respondents' dog, Avery. They sued for Avery's “sentimental or intrinsic value” because the dog had little or no market value and was irreplaceable. The trial court found that Texas law barred such damages, and dismissed the suit with prejudice. The Court of Appeals of Texas became the first court to hold that a dog owner may recover intangible loss-of-companionship damages in the form of intrinsic or sentimental-value property damages. The Supreme Court reverses that decision here, ruling that dogs are ordinary property, with damages limited to market value, and noneconomic damages based in relational attachment are not permitted.
Strickland v. Davis


A case involving an automobile accident in which the court declared that photographs may be authenticated by a party having personal knowledge of the location and who can verify that the photos substantially represent the conditions as they existed at the time in question.
Strawser v. Wright


Plaintiff sued defendant dog breeders after defendants misrepresented that the dog had been vaccinated as a newborn against Parvo.  In affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on the issue of negligent infliction of emotional distress the court noted that dogs are considered property in Ohio.  While the court sympathized "with one who must endure the sense of loss which may accompany the death of a pet; however, we cannot ignore the law . . . Ohio law simply does not permit recovery for serious emotional distress which is caused when one witnesses the negligent injury or destruction of one's property."

Pages