Court: Pet's Value Is Market Cost, Not Sentimental Value

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Court: Pet's Value Is Market Cost, Not Sentimental Value

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ATLANTA — Jun 6, 2016, 12:54 PM ET

Georgia's highest court ruled Monday that the value of a pet injured or killed by someone else's negligence is the animal's fair market value but that the owners may also try to collect costs incurred trying to save the animal.

The unanimous Georgia Supreme Court opinion written by Chief Justice Hugh Thompson acknowledges the "subject matter of this case is near and dear to the heart of many a Georgian in that it involves the untimely death of a beloved family pet and concerns the proper measure of damages available to the owners of an animal injured or killed through the negligence of others."

But under Georgia law, Thompson wrote, the owners can't seek damages based on the sentimental value of the animal to its owner, writing that "the unique human-animal bond, while cherished, is beyond legal measure."

Robert and Elizabeth Monyak sued the Barking Hound Village kennel and its manager, claiming negligence, fraud, and deceit in the death of their dog Lola.

The Monyaks boarded their two dogs — Lola, an 8 ½-year-old dachshund mix, and Callie, a 13-year-old mixed labrador retriever — at Barking Hound Village for 10 days in May 2012. The Monyaks say kennel staff gave Lola medication intended for Callie, which they say caused kidney failure that led to her death nine months later.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/georgia-high-court-rules-kennel-negligence-case-39641014

[TDale313]

1. The law is just fucking wrong. n/t

[GummyBearz]

3. Disagree

There has to be a fair and concrete way to determine value (even of pets). Otherwise I would say my childhood dog was worth $10,000,000,000 in sentimental value, and sue the person who hit it for that much money.

[jberryhill]

7. It's been that way in most jurisidictions for, like, ever

This is not an unusual result.

[KamaAina]

2. Emotional suffering?

[jberryhill]

6. What has been the extent of the psychological care needed?

One of the most irritating popular beliefs about law is that people obtain damage awards for some vague notion of "emotional distress".

When courts find damages based on emotional distress, it is not simply because someone "feels bad". Like any other form of injury, it has to be backed up by objective medical evidence, such as psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

[leftyladyfrommo]

4. It's always been that way.

Pets are property and their value in a court of law is simply their monetary value.

[Drahthaardogs]

5. As it should be.

Pets are not human. I am as attached as any to my dogs, but they are NOT furry babies. They are dogs.

When people say, " I don't have kids but I have two dogs..." , I just cringe.

[RedRocco]

8. if your dog (or whatever pet) gets in the road

and someone hits it and kills it, you get a nice big bill for their auto repairs and nothing for the dead pet.

[Downtown Hound]

9. I agree there should be limits on the emotional damage

from the loss of a pet, but I wouldn't place its value at zero dollars. Modest compensation for pain and suffering seems fair to me.

[meow2u3]

10. Laws need to be changed categorizing animals in a class by themselves

Pets should be regarded no longer as merely property, but as sentient beings with emotional value to the human who keeps them under his or her roof. The law has not caught up with the norms concerning pets and it needs to.