General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCourt: Pet's Value Is Market Cost, Not Sentimental Value
Source: Associated Press
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
(7,820 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)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
(62,444 posts)This is not an unusual result.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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
(18,874 posts)Pets are property and their value in a court of law is simply their monetary value.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)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
(454 posts)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
(12,618 posts)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
(24,774 posts)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.