Courts remain mostly tardy to valuing pet companionship.

I was sent an especially touching photo last night. Unfortunately, since it was one of those forwarded mass emails, I don’t know its origin, attribution or much beyond that I was moved by its tender poignancy.

It reminded me of what lawyer and senator George Graham Vest once argued in a famous case involving a dog. Vest memorably declaimed, “The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog.

“A man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master’s side.

“He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings, and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.”

I’ve blogged often about dogs and how much they add “to the simpatico in life.” And I’ve meant to write about them again in light of a remarkable Texas Court of Appeals decision this past November. The emailed photo was a welcome prompt.

The Texas case involved an allegedly negligent animal shelter employee who mistakenly euthanized Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen’s dog, “Avery.” The dog got out of their backyard and was picked up by animal control. But before the Medlens could recover their beloved pet and despite a “hold for owner” tag, Avery was put down.

                                                                                                                                                          The sole issue before the Court was “whether a party can recover intrinsic or sentimental damages for the loss of a dog.” 

                                                                                                                                                     Amazingly, despite the weight of existing law inadequately determining the value of companion animals, the court answered ‘yes.’

                                                                                                                                             “Scruffy,” the cat.

What happened to the Medlens is tragically similar to the death last December of 9-month-old “Scruffy, the cat, at a Phoenix animal shelter. Scruffy belonged to Daniel Dockery, a homeless man recovering from drug addiction. Dockery was unable to immediately pay $400 for veterinary care to treat lacerations on Scruffy’s leg.

Dockery’s mother telephoned and offered to pay for Scruffy’s treatment by credit card but clinic officials declined to take a credit card from his mother over the phone or wait 24 hours for cash. So Dockery surrendered ownership of Scruffy and claims staff told him Scruffy would be treated only if he signed over ownership. But when he did so, Scruffy was euthanized by the Arizona Humane Society. See “Man learns cat was euthanized over money.”

In Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen’s case, though, when the shelter euthanized their dog, they did something about the outrage. A wee but important exception under Texas law allows “that where personal property has little or no market value, and its main value is in sentiment, damages may be awarded based on this intrinsic or sentimental value.” [1]

The Texas Appeals Court applied this exception to Avery’s case. Now this goes against decades and decades of legal precedent in all jurisdictions – - – not only in Texas where “dogs are personal property” [2]. Companion animals are chattel i.e., movable articles of personal property like an inanimate dinner plate or a hairbrush. And this despite that even in a recession, Americans spent $55 billion on companion pets last year  and that the veterinary costs of pet care are well over $12 billion annually. Thousands of dollars, for example, are spent on treating canine cancer. When was the last time, anyone spent such sums on a hairbrush, a power tool or a Wedgwood saucer?

So to its inestimable credit, the Texas Appeals Court made national news by distinguishing prior longstanding Texas case authority, Heiligmann v. Rose, which placed a dog’s value on either its market value or some special or pecuniary value to the owner based on the usefulness and services of the dog. [3]

“Heiligmann does not say that special value is derived ―solely from usefulness or services and that it does not include companionship or sentimental value. Heiligmann says that the value of a dog ―may be ascertained from usefulness or services. 16 S.W. at 932. And nowhere does Heiligmann state what should be considered in assessing the usefulness or services of a dog. It certainly did not rule out companionship or sentimental value. The Heiligmann opinion never uses the term ―intrinsic value or ―sentimental value; therefore, the opinion cannot preclude an award of damages never specifically discussed.”

Although animal shelters, veterinarians, kennel owners and other industry types are decrying the ruling in Texas, claiming it will raise ownership costs, it’s worthy of applause. AND its about time.

It’s long been absurd for the pet industry to feign concern for pet ownership costs while making money on their sentiments – - – that is, until negligent acts are committed. Then they disregard those very sentiments and argue instead that the mutt is like a hairbrush with only fair market value.

This is what the Texas Appellate Court wrote: “Because of the special position pets hold in their family, we see no reason why existing law should not be interpreted to allow recovery in the loss of a pet at least to the same extent as any other personal property. Cf. Bueckner, 886 S.W.2d at 37778 (Andell, J., concurring) (“Society has long since moved beyond the untenable Cartesian view that animals are unfeeling automatons and, hence, mere property.

“The law should reflect society’s recognition that animals are sentient and emotive beings that are capable of providing companionship to the humans with whom they live.”).

“Dogs are unconditionally devoted to their owners. Today, we interpret timeworn supreme court law in light of subsequent supreme court law to acknowledge that the special value of “man’s best friend” should be protected.”

______________________________________________________________

[1] City of Tyler v. Likes, 962 S.W.2d 489, 497 (Tex., 1998) and Brown v. Frontier Theatres, Inc., 369 S.W.2d 299, 304-05 (Tex.1963)

[2] Arrington v. Arrington, 613 S.W.2d 565, 569 (Tex. Civ. App. – Forth Worth 1981, no writ).

[3] Heiligmann v. Rose, 16 S.W. 931 (Tex.,1891)

Credits: “kisses in the rain (264/365.2),” by Eunice, sleepyneko, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution and share alike distribution; “homeless man and two dogs,” by Simon Aughton, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content for noncommercial use requiring attribution and share alike distribution.