Under the eyes of the law, should pets be more than just property?

Pet negligence cases brought to court are not significant in number. A problem with these cases is how to value the animal if someone negligently or intentionally kills the pet.

Typically, courts award only fair market value of the “property” to compensate for the loss of the animal. To determine value, courts may consider the animal’s pedigree, cost, special training, and other factors that would affect the animal’s price if you were to sell him. Even with all these factors the value is nominal when compared to the actual value to the pet owner in terms of the loss of companionship.

While the non economic value far exceeds the actual value considered by courts, even for prized winning purebreds valued at perhaps a few thousand dollars, the expenses of bringing a lawsuit far out way any potential recovery.

Further complicating the prospects of successfully suing in this area is the fact that the American rule of attorney’s fees requires each side to pay, in most cases, their own attorney’s fees regardless of outcome.

Non economic damages, including the loss of companionship, are rarely awarded. Two states have changed that by statute (Illinois and Tennessee) allowing for non economic damages for the death of a pet. It is unlikely that more and more states will pass such legislation which is likely to be strongly opposed by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Accordingly, the prospects of bringing a pet negligence case to successful conclusion, at least from an economic standpoint, is not good moving forward.