Most states have rules establishing who can sue for emotional distress after a victim’s death and which actions can result in these types of damages. In a recent California case, the court of appeals refused to place any value on the loss of a pet dog, other than the monetary value of the dog itself. The court also refused to allow the family to claim compensation for loss of companionship.
In other courts however, dogs have been given more value in recent years. An Oregon decision said that an owner may claim damages if he can “prove [a dog’s] special value to him by showing its qualities, characteristics and pedigree . . . .”
Louisiana, Texas, Illinois and Florida all recognize the value a pet may have to his owners, and as times change, it seems more states may become open to this concept. Orange County personal injury attorneys hope that eventually, even California may change its ways.
In Vermont, a case is coming up before the state’s supreme court to decide if Denis and Sarah Scheele can claim emotional distress compensation from the person who shot and killed their dog. “We’re still working toward having the courts recognizing the true value of companion animals. They’re members of the family, not mere property,” Sarah Scheele said.
To read more about these important issues, see the articles on Oregon Animal Law and Sphere. Image Via Tambako The Jaguar [Flickr].
Tags: animals, dogs, emotional distress, loss of companionship, pets, state laws