Comments on: Festering Lawsuit: Driver Runs Over Dog and Then Sues Owners http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/09/festering-lawsuit-driver-runs-over-dog-and-then-sues-owners/ Res ipsa loquitur ("The thing itself speaks") Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:07:09 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: petdefense http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/09/festering-lawsuit-driver-runs-over-dog-and-then-sues-owners/#comment-35115 petdefense Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:52:42 +0000 http://jonathanturley.wordpress.com/?p=1779#comment-35115 Animal extremists argued (amicus) in Denver's BSL appeal Jan 2009, that animals are not property, but we all know that extremists say this because they believe animals are equal to if not higher, than humans. The believe owning or using animals is slavery. That is why they want animals classified as *not* property. Animal extremists argued (amicus) in Denver’s BSL appeal Jan 2009, that animals are not property, but we all know that extremists say this because they believe animals are equal to if not higher, than humans. The believe owning or using animals is slavery. That is why they want animals classified as *not* property.

]]> By: mespo727272 http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/09/festering-lawsuit-driver-runs-over-dog-and-then-sues-owners/#comment-12998 mespo727272 Fri, 09 May 2008 23:03:40 +0000 http://jonathanturley.wordpress.com/?p=1779#comment-12998 Jill: That's a wonderful example of a pet being more than property. Thank you very much for the story. Jill:

That’s a wonderful example of a pet being more than property. Thank you very much for the story.

]]> By: Jill http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/09/festering-lawsuit-driver-runs-over-dog-and-then-sues-owners/#comment-12992 Jill Fri, 09 May 2008 21:28:42 +0000 http://jonathanturley.wordpress.com/?p=1779#comment-12992 Mespo, this just came in the Assitance Dog newsletter: "Debbie has multiple sclerosis...now with her new service dog Jazzy, she no longer feels...invisible to people. Debbie said, "I don't think able-bodied people can truly realize how precious these dogs are. Jazzy will give me back some of the independence and confidence that I've lost. I won't have to rely on other people so much and I'll avoid the types of injuries that were caused by bending or reaching for something I need. She gives me a sense of purpose that I haven't had since I've had to stop working...All this from this beautiful creature that is "just a dog". Mespo, this just came in the Assitance Dog newsletter:

“Debbie has multiple sclerosis…now with her new service dog Jazzy, she no longer feels…invisible to people. Debbie said, “I don’t think able-bodied people can truly realize how precious these dogs are. Jazzy will give me back some of the independence and confidence that I’ve lost. I won’t have to rely on other people so much and I’ll avoid the types of injuries that were caused by bending or reaching for something I need. She gives me a sense of purpose that I haven’t had since I’ve had to stop working…All this from this beautiful creature that is “just a dog”.

]]> By: mespo727272 http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/09/festering-lawsuit-driver-runs-over-dog-and-then-sues-owners/#comment-12990 mespo727272 Fri, 09 May 2008 20:42:31 +0000 http://jonathanturley.wordpress.com/?p=1779#comment-12990 Like some of the common law that defied human experience, I suspect this too will change. Some people attach as much affection to their pets as they do to their family. To disregard this truism invites attack and change. I have always thought the damages analysis should be viewed in subjective terms as it applies to the particular plaintiff involved. That is the basis for the "thin skull" rule. Courts do however tend to look at the injuries in objective terms, though paying lip service to the plaintiff's particular circumstances when they remit awards. I think we'll need a good fact pattern to reverse this outcome. Perhaps the loss of a "Seeing Eye" dog by a visually challenged person would sway the Court's opinion given its obvious importance (physically and emotionally) to its owner. Like some of the common law that defied human experience, I suspect this too will change. Some people attach as much affection to their pets as they do to their family. To disregard this truism invites attack and change. I have always thought the damages analysis should be viewed in subjective terms as it applies to the particular plaintiff involved. That is the basis for the “thin skull” rule. Courts do however tend to look at the injuries in objective terms, though paying lip service to the plaintiff’s particular circumstances when they remit awards. I think we’ll need a good fact pattern to reverse this outcome. Perhaps the loss of a “Seeing Eye” dog by a visually challenged person would sway the Court’s opinion given its obvious importance (physically and emotionally) to its owner.

]]> By: jonathanturley http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/09/festering-lawsuit-driver-runs-over-dog-and-then-sues-owners/#comment-12980 jonathanturley Fri, 09 May 2008 17:16:09 +0000 http://jonathanturley.wordpress.com/?p=1779#comment-12980 Mespo: Usually one has to argue negligent infliction of emotional distress to extend damages. The common law still views the value of the pet in terms of market value. JT Mespo:

Usually one has to argue negligent infliction of emotional distress to extend damages. The common law still views the value of the pet in terms of market value.

JT

]]> By: mespo727272 http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/09/festering-lawsuit-driver-runs-over-dog-and-then-sues-owners/#comment-12975 mespo727272 Fri, 09 May 2008 15:40:56 +0000 http://jonathanturley.wordpress.com/?p=1779#comment-12975 JT: Are you aware of any jurisdictions that allow for non-economic damages for the loss of domestic animals? Here in Virginia we will not permit such damages, but the attorney who had such a case told me there was a contrary minority view. If so, I hope Minn. is one of them, but given the ad damnum amount it appears not. JT:

Are you aware of any jurisdictions that allow for non-economic damages for the loss of domestic animals? Here in Virginia we will not permit such damages, but the attorney who had such a case told me there was a contrary minority view. If so, I hope Minn. is one of them, but given the ad damnum amount it appears not.

]]>