Pets and the Law – Times They Are A’Changing!

By Amy Fernandez

In April, local news sources reported on a Seaford, Long Island couple suing their veterinarian for malpractice, negligent misrepresentation, lack of informed consent, property damage, and punitive damages after their dog’s death last January. They claimed that their vet had prescribed Rimadyl without warning them of potential side effects. They’re not only asking for $350,000, they’re demanding a state law requiring vets to provide warning of potential side effects with every prescription.

There’s never been a shortage of disgruntled owners seeking retribution, but until recently it’s been difficult to find legal representation for these cases. Getting a civil case to trial in state court costs roughly $150,000, and plaintiffs rarely score big awards for the loss of companion animals. In 2004, an Orange County, California man made headlines winning a record $39,000 veterinary malpractice settlement. However, his legal fees exceeded $375,000.

From a legal standpoint, pets are property. Compensation is based on an animal’s monetary value. Even exceptional show or working dogs are seldom valued at more than $30.000. Infrequent cases that have scored non-economic damages were usually overturned on appeal.

But something’s changed.

The economy is partly to blame. Lawyers are scrambling to earn a living like the rest of us and accepting cases they previously wouldn’t consider. The lawyer presenting this $350,000 Rimadyl case is a run-of-the-mill accident and injury attorney, but it’s indicative of the trend to get in on the action.

A decade ago, less than ten law schools offered animal law courses. Today, it’s about half, and nearly 100 law schools have campus chapters of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund. The American Bar Association, along with 13 state bar associations, now have animal law committees.

This formerly obscure field is attracting more lawyers because of major changes in legal precedents. A decade ago, the idea of divorce cases involving custody disputes over pets was ludicrous. It’s now so common it has spawned an offshoot profession of animal behaviorists specializing in psychological evaluations of pets in custody battles. Estate lawyers are also jumping in because 39 states now allow owners to endow pet trusts, something practically unheard of back in the day when real estate mogul Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her Maltese.

But the weak economy only explains part of it. Interest in animal law reflects a mainstream shift toward animal rights philosophy. Despite their significance, we usually overlook minor legal developments. Animal cruelty cases are the headline grabbers.

They follow the pattern. Animal cruelty is now a felony in 42 states, up from seven in 1994. Prosecutors are now pushing to establish animal abuser registries similar to sex offender registries.

Law enforcement and politicians emphasize that research links animal cruelty to a general propensity for violent behavior. That’s an understandable justification for stringent laws, but not the main one. Always follow the money, and, in my opinion, you will find AR groups have the financial clout to court political support. This phenomenon was on full display in New York last month when five mayoral candidates turned out for a ridiculous animal rights forum.

AR groups aggressively encourage animal-related lawsuits, even providing detailed “how to” advice. Civil suits and small claims cases don’t signal radical changes in legal ideology, but in their world, any legal victory against breeders, vets, groomers, or rescue groups is another step towards redefining that legal boundary between humans and animals.

Support for this nihilistic concept is clearly evident in the new generation of pet friendly publications. Editorial policy dictates replacing terms like owner with vague, socially acceptable idioms like pet parent and guardian. Although few readers – or editors – grasp the significant legal implications, it’s not merely a matter of semantics.

Legally, animals are property, therefore their owners have ultimate authority. Redefining owners as guardians automatically redefines animals as wards. That part of the equation never seems to get any publicity. Unlike property, wards have legal standing. From a legal standpoint, the interests of wards always take precedence over those of guardians. We are familiar with cases of parents losing custody of children because they disagreed with recommended medical protocols or refused treatment. Third parties can sue on behalf of a ward based on allegations of abuse or neglect. And courts routinely respond by awarding custody to court appointed guardians.

If this sounds impossibly ridiculous, think again. In Britain, owners have lost custody of pets for reasons like allowing the animal to become overweight.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=24636

Posted by admin on Jun 9 2013. Filed under Current Articles, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.