Is a pet just a person's property, or something more? That's the question facing the Vermont Supreme Court, which heard arguments Thursday on whether a Maryland couple can sue for emotional damages in the fatal shooting of Shadow, their shepherd-chow-spaniel mix. What do you think?
Should people be able to sue for emotional damage for the loss of a pet?
Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:37 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
It's just a DOG
get over it
Obviously you have the same values as Vick did.
Joe, where do you draw that conclusion from? The question was should they sue for monetary gain and I said no. Should they grieve? Of course. Should the shooter be charged? Of course. Should the couple make a profit from this? No.
Do not think you can read my values from a seven word comment.
Ya'll can beat me to death too; I'm with Mastaface. They ARE NOT your children. You DID NOT give birth to them. They are pets. The same people that are crying how they are animal lovers are the same people that have taken a once-noble animal (I"m talking specifically about dogs here) that was bred for a certain skill, whether it be hunting or rat killing or whatever and made them their obsequious lap-dogs. Those same people have taken the honor away from worthy animals because they need a pet to provide them with constant validation. Okay, go ahead now, rip my character to shreds.
Especially in the case of a childless couple, the pet is MORE than a pet - they are child substitutes in a very real sense. My personal belief is that a childless person will have much stronger bond of love with their pet than a family with children. Had the firearms been discharged accidentally it would be a different story - this firearms was discharged with INTENT to hit the animal. The story does NOT discuss whether the dog was threatening Dustin ... or whether it had just strayed over a property line, which would alter circumstances.
Peace on earth for all humans and animals ...
I have to say (Mastaface & "literate"), that unless you have had a dog as a member of your family, you can not possibly know the pain that a loss in this manner would cause. Your comments highlight a common disagreement between people who respect animals and those who believe that the purpose of any animal is to serve a human.
It is my experience that animals serve a purpose in our lives both physically (bomb sniffing dogs, police dogs, etc.) and emotionally (love, affection, nurturing), just as any human we come into contact with. Human arrogance is responsible for looking at living creatures as objects, something I believe both of you have displayed here. Whether you like it or not, animals are sentient beings worthy of the same respect we would give to any human.
I have three dogs who have seen the worst side of human behavior, yet they wait by the door for me to come home and show me unconditional affection. They are not just lap dogs, but they accompany me on any activity in which I am able to bring them. If I go on vacation and have a sitter come stay with them, they are lost until my spouse and I get home. So please, don't tell me that animals are equivalent to pieces of furniture. Though I am currently childless, I do feel an emotional connection to my dogs that could be equivocated to a connection with any close family member.
Also, to address the financial gain portion of your statement - look at the track record of the couple this article talks about. They give back to their community through volunteerism and adoption of the very animals that people like you simply discard. I highly doubt they are looking for a payday so they could run out and go shopping for inanimate objects, nor would (just about) anyone willing to pursue justice for their furry friend in this manner.
Your just a mean-spirited person ... getting over you wouldn't be a problem either.
My dogs are my kids. I have had dogs all my life and each time one died it was like losing a little piece of my heart. To MasaFace ,something tells me you would not be a great loss ,say if someone accidentally on purpose ran over you.
m-squared, I'm with you. When my Maggie died, I couldn't stop crying for two weeks. I had never felt so depressed, even though I'd lost elder pets before... she was just a kitten, and died in my arms. It's different for everyone, I guess, but I'll never understand people who don't respect other species as having feelings and emotional lives, which they obviously do.
Peace on earth...
While I was working in North Georgia, my families 13 year old border collie Ike died of strangulation...He was tied on a 75 foot run and somehow got tangled in some tree limbs and couldn't get his front paws back on the ground. My wife and 15 year old son had to bury him without me...I cried for Ike, them and myself. I can't help but wonder if I had been there could I have somehow found him before he died and saved his life...I'll never know...I'll always wonder...
Dear Outrider: my heart goes out to you. The only way I can get over a pets death is to remember the beautiful life we had together. I'm so sorry for your loss.
peace...
It's about time the court system was dragged into the realities of the 21st century kicking and screaming. The archaic attitude that pets are just objects to be possessed is a holdover from days long, long ago, when animals were prized primarily for their functional aspects (herding, ratting, etc.). That has changed, and I hope the Vermont court and others recognize this and will be willing to change the laws. Pets are living things with distinct personalities, capable of loving and being loved. We become attached to them for good reason, and it is devastating when we lose them. I cannot imagine losing one of my babies to an obvious sociopath as happened in the case under consideration.
Even if you are a parent with one or two or more children, there is some deep anguish when you lose a pet. That is not to say, that the loss of a child wouldn't be even more traumatic, but it is foolish to discount the bond many people establish with their dogs. When one is lost, it is often devastating and if the owner has provided safe care for their animals and if one is killed or even critically hurt through no fault of the owner, then, yes, you should have the right to sue for loss.
MASTAFACE.....It is people like you that are the reason so many like us prefer animals over people.
Dogs and cats are more than property and should be recognized for that. However, the couple in question should not receive anything further. They were at fault for much of what happened and should be willing to accept responsibility for it. They also received money from the man who shot their dog already. They need to let it go and realize where they screwed up too. Unfortunately, each case would have to be decided individually.
I'm gonna put this in real simple terms for you, so maybe you can get it- think of the dog as adopting a kid. Sure, the kid's not "from your body", but it is, now, a member of the family. It has it's own distinct personality, as well any child would.
How about this? Go out, adopt, say, a yorkie, keep it for a year, then try to kill it, see if you can. Don't keep it for the specific purpouse of killing it later, but try to grow attached to it. If you can't, then I've lost this argument. But I know you'd grow attached to it
If they truly loved their dog like a member of the family, like a child if you will, why did they let it wander off? Would they let a child wander off? You can't say that an animal is like a member of your family and then not be willing to share the responsibility if you don't keep an eye on it like a family member. I'm not saying the guy had a right to shoot the dog any more than a kid, but we all know there are idiots out there. We have 2 dogs and 5 cats (they are all strictly inside animals because of the road we live on) and I would not let any of them wander off into someone elses yard any more than I would my kids because of the idiots.
Accidents happen and sometimes animals get out even when they're fenced in. My cat has excaped from a fenced yard and darted out the door when I wasn't looking, so I wouldn't put too much blame on the owners. Yes, their animal should have been surpervised, but that doesn't in any way excuse their neighbor from shooting the dog on sight. There's absolutely no justification for that unless this man feared for his life and there was no evidence at all that the dog had acted in a threatening manner.
I didn't say the guy was justified, as a matter of fact I inferred he was an idiot. And yes part of the blame should be on the owners. Animals actually take a little more effort in keeping them from wandering off than kids but it is still the owners responsibility to do so. I have animals, they are my resposibility if anything happens to them mistakenly or not, just like my kids. Ultimately their well being is my responsibility. These people were visiting someone else's home when their dog wandered off. If animal owners are to be compensated as if an animal is one of their family, then they should be just as dilligent as if it was one of their family. I repeat the question, would they have let their kids wander to a neighbors property without supervision.?
Anyone who's ever had a pet in their lives knows full well that these animals are not merely property. We develop strong emotional attachments to these creatures, and they to us. When they die, it's not unusual (and is recognized by psychologists as being entirely normal ) to feel a deep, profound sense of loss, very much akin to how you might feeling after losing a friend or family member that you were particularly close to. We have strong realtionships with our animals, without the complications that sometimes come with human interactions, which can make the feelings of attachment run very storng and deep. And yes, for some people, pets can be pseudo-children in a way.
When I had to put my cat Freebee to sleep after over 18 years together (longer than most of the frienships I have have lasted) and I cried more after losing her than I did when my grandfather died. To lose a beloved pet due to old age, illness of accident is painful enough. But to have your pet come to harm due to the negligence of maliciousness of someone else and not having any legal compensation save for the monetary value of your animal and any veterinary expenses you may have incured is especially hard to take. This is not the first case where owners had attempted to sue for the emotional harm done to them by the loss of a pet - a few years ago, I remember reading about a case where some drunks looking to get even with someone else deliberately struck a young girls horse with a pickup truck, injuring the horse badly enough that he needed to be put down. Her family had tried to sue but were only awarded the monitary value of the horse (a few thousand dollars) even though the horse died as the result of a malicious act.
We have long since moved past the time when pets were simply property to their owners. It's long past time for the courts to catch up with this fact.
I think you should ask the blind with their seeing-eye dogs, the Olympian equestrian with a horse with so much courage that it would face a 5 x 6 ft oxer with room to spare, the cadavar dog who searchs the wreckage for the dead just how important their animals are to them. Yeppers, I think animals are much, much more than just a commodity to trade.
According to the article they let the dog wonder off. It that really as well as they would take care of a child? Human or other creature people need to act responsible for the lives they have been intrusted with. If you charge the landowner who shot the dog then you need to charge the parents for child endangerment for letting their child 'dog' wonder around unsupervised.
Its just a dog comment that got the dog shot in the first place. Only mean hateful people shot at dogs and cats. If someone shot one of my four legged family members, it would be a real big mistake on their place.
So, to the get over it guy, do not make the mistake of come in my yard !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are more people I would rather put to sleep than my pets if I had to make that choice or decision!!!
Dogs are a mans best friend. They save lives Make us happy and look out for are kids. They play and do things with us, That we will never for get . There family to us that have them. Are dog Angel is a white germanShepard, She plays with are kids all the time . My kids would be lost with out her. So would my wife.Love them and never let any one harm them.
Our (6) dogs are our children. My wife and I, long ago, decided that 4-legged kids were more desirable than 2-legged kids any day of the week and twice on Sunday, so 4-legged family members is what we've ended up with.
We're an animal-friendly household and we foster for a local rescue organization on a regular basis. We love our animals. They are our children and are treated as such. They each have a place in our home and our hearts. BUT... we would never let any of our girls "wander off" and into someones yard. Dog's go outside the house, dog's get put on a leash. If you're going to persecute the guy for shooting the animal, then you have to persecute the owner for letting the dog get away from them.
I ask you this: If a parent let their child "wander off" and into the road, and the child was hit by a car, who's at fault? The driver for not seeing the child wander into the path of the vehicle, or the parent for being negligent in their parenting duties?
This is a very "slippery slope" case for the courts involved, and I don't envy them their decision. Either way they decide, there will be opposition and outrage. They truly are "damned if they do and damned if they don't".
Now all of that being said, if a neighbor shot one of our animals, there'd be hell to pay and I would go to the ends of the earth to try and get the laws in my state changed. Unfortunately, there are more people out there that think like MastaFace (Post#1) that any of us would like to think about, and they will be the very vocal Ying to our collective, animal loving, Yang.
Why stop at dogs? What if the pet were a cat, a snake, a hamster, a mouse? People are people, pets are pets, no matter how attached we are to them. It's a slippery slope we'll be on if the court grants emotional damages for pets.
This was 'intentional'. Not an accident. I think people should be compensated by the offender just like they would be if it were a HUMAN family member in a situation like this.
I love my animals and agree that the court should rule in favor of the family that lost their dog. However, my neighbor lets his German shepherd run the block, the dog is getting bigger and more aggressive and more than once has approached me while I'm gardening and growled or approached me aggressively. Would I, or my husband, shoot this dog or otherwise harm it if it tries to harm one of us? You bet your bippy we would. I have asked the neighbor and animal control to do something to no avail. Animals are not children and children are not animals. There are some very important distinctions to be drawn here. It's not simply black and white either. The dog in question should have been more protected by its family and the neighbor overreacted with tragic consequences. Ask yourself this? If your dog was in any way threatening your child, anyone's dog, which of them would your primary concern be with? Mine would be with my child and I have four dogs, three cats and a rabbit and I love them all. Would I harm an animal that was going to harm me or my husband or children? Yes, I would.
I can't even figure out which way the Yes or No votes are to be interpreted based on the extremely ambiguous way this question is posed. Sloppy, guys. Very sloppy.
If the dog was shot on his own property that would be one thing, it was not. People should not be allowed to profit from something like this, when they can go out the next day and get another dog. Yeah, I know it won't be the same, but coming from a pet owner, there is no reason for many of the frivilous lawsuits that are out there today. I'll bet the trial lawyers would be all for it, though. What do you think?