A court ruling earlier this month by California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal will make collecting money for emotional distress in vet malpractice cases more difficult for pet owners.
Although the McMahon ruling confirms that animals are still viewed as personal property (the same as a couch or a coffeemaker) in the eyes of the law, according to Bruce Wagman, chief outside litigation counsel for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, it definitely leaves an opening for future lawsuits regarding care-related animal injuries and deaths.
“There is a real disconnect going on here,” says Wagman citing the growing number of people in our country for whom pets are full-fledged family members. “We can recover for pain and suffering for a child’s death, but we can’t in the case of a pet. If something happens to their animal, pet owners should be able to collect.”
In some cases, California law does allow a pet owner to seek compensation for the loss of an animal’s “unique economic value.” These special cases determine what is called “peculiar value” and can also include jewelry, photos, film — basically any property that has a low monetary value but a high sentimental one.
“I have eight animals at home,” says Wagman. “I got them from shelters for little more than basic administrative costs and they have depreciated further over the years. They are essentially worthless in the eyes of the market. But if someone killed one of my dogs I would say that that dog was like my son.”
Many factors are evaluated when determining “peculiar value.” In the case of an animal, an owner might be asked how long they had the pet, if it slept inside or out, how much time each day they spent with it, how many pets total they had and the level of care and training the pet received. “The worth of a single woman’s only companion would be very different from that of a dog that belonged to a man with 25 pets who couldn’t remember which was Fido and which was Rover,” says Wagman.
Although Wagman spent more than half an hour arguing the “peculiar value” aspect of the McMahon case, there is almost no mention of it in the case ruling. He attributes this to several factors including the gap that still remains between the public’s shifting perceptions of companion animals as family members and how they are still traditionally defined by law (i.e. as property).
Should pet owners be able to recover damages greater than the market value of their companion animals? What do you think?