The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 1999
    Location
    Cypress, near Houston, Texas
    Posts
    8,562

    Default Texas case holds that plaintiff can recover sentimental value of a pet

    This is way overdue. Read the story here:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticle...460&slreturn=1

    As expected, the other side is appealing and the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Texas Veterinary Medical Association has joined hands with them and are filing amicus briefs (third party support briefs) condemning the ruling and asking that it be overturned. They are panicking at the thought of actually having to be held responsible if they negligently kill a pet.

    But what did surprise me (don't know why, since they are such supporters of puppy mills) is that the AKC also filed an amicus brief condemning the court's ruling. Also filing briefs in opposition to the court's holding are Cat Fanciers Association, Animal Health Institute, American Pet Products Association, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council.

    It's all about the money, folks.
    Visit Sonesta Farms website at www.sonestafarms.com or our FaceBook page at www.facebook.com/sonestafarms. Also showing & breeding Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul. 11, 2004
    Posts
    7,013

    Default

    Sounds like the woman at the pound was one of the typically malicious vermin that are all too commonly working at these places.

    I had a cat killed by one such bucktoothed harridan (she didn't think someone in the Army should adopt a cat...so she killed it while I was up signing the paperwork)

    Same beast killed a Gordon Setter because the adopter was going to take him hunting (it's what they were bred for). He was there to pick him up and "Bucky" grabbed him and killed him...she knew what was best.

    Hopefully this law will stand, funny who's against it, eh?
    "Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc"



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,154

    Default

    Reading that scenario has pretty much ensured that if I EVER locate one of my pets in an animal shelter, my hand will go on their collar and will not leave it until someone who has been summoned via my cell comes with whatever documents and money is required.

    They will pry me off that collar over my dead body.

    Unfortunately in this day and age it is becoming increasingly necessary to act that way because you simply can not trust anybody to be basically competent when left to their own devices.



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr. 12, 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,991

    Default

    This is very interesting and could have some weight with a case we have currently where I live.

    We do not have a pound, so one of the local veterinarians holds the dogs and cats brought in by the dog catcher for X number of days before they are euthed. These dogs are placed in a specific area of the clinic's kennels. The vet who owns the practice also has not been euthing the animals, but had instead had a dog catcher doing it.
    Over the holidays, an elderly couple brought their 2 daschunds in for boarding. I'm guessing the vet clinic was full for boarding, so someone put the daschunds in the "to be euthed" kennels. The dog catcher came in that evening and, you guessed it, euthed the couples dogs. Now the couple is suing, rightfully so IMO.
    Rhode Islands are red;
    North Hollands are blue.
    Sorry my thoroughbreds
    Stomped on your roo. Originally Posted by pAin't_Misbehavin' :



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul. 13, 2011
    Location
    East Longmeadow, MA
    Posts
    3,799

    Default

    WOW. Good for that court. And it is absolutely disgusting to see who is opposed to the ruling.



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonesta View Post
    This is way overdue.
    Agreed.
    Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
    Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
    -Rudyard Kipling



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    43,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonesta View Post
    This is way overdue. Read the story here:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticle...460&slreturn=1

    As expected, the other side is appealing and the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Texas Veterinary Medical Association has joined hands with them and are filing amicus briefs (third party support briefs) condemning the ruling and asking that it be overturned. They are panicking at the thought of actually having to be held responsible if they negligently kill a pet.

    But what did surprise me (don't know why, since they are such supporters of puppy mills) is that the AKC also filed an amicus brief condemning the court's ruling. Also filing briefs in opposition to the court's holding are Cat Fanciers Association, Animal Health Institute, American Pet Products Association, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council.

    It's all about the money, folks.
    If we look past cases as those, in general, this ruling sets a precedent animal rights can stand on to eventually declare animals other than propriety and that can of worms will be open.

    I would say that, maybe not just the money is at stake here as a motivation why the animal industry groups are against this ruling.

    Maybe if someone asked them they would get an answer, rather than guessing automatically "it is all about the money, those robbers", just as assuming they were for horse slaughter, when they were against the ill drawn ban horse slaughter bill, AS WRITTEN.

    I think these and others are situations we need to stand back and be sure of what the issues are, all of them, not let any one side run with the ball and follow them without careful thought.

    Will be interesting to see what happens when brought to court again.
    Hopefully the judging there will satisfy the real need of regress for those wronged, without opening the pandora box of animal rights this may do.



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    If we look past cases as those, in general, this ruling sets a precedent animal rights can stand on to eventually declare animals other than propriety and that can of worms will be open.

    I would say that, not the money, is behind why the animal industry groups are against this ruling.

    Maybe if someone asked them they would get an answer, rather than guessing automatically "it is all about the money, those robbers".
    That argument is not apposite to this ruling.

    This ruling still centers on the value of the animal TO THE PERSON. There is the animal's monetary value TO THE PERSON, and the animal's sentimental value TO THE PERSON.

    The ruling just allows a greater $ amount to be attached to its loss to make the PERSON "whole again" after the loss or negligent destruction of the animal.

    It has nothing to do with the inherent rights of the animal.
    If somebody could sue for the sentimental value of a wedding ring as opposed to just the market value it does not suddenly bestow rights on the ring, it just gives the suing party more damages to collect.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    43,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meupatdoes View Post
    That argument is not apposite to this ruling.

    This ruling still centers on the value of the animal TO THE PERSON. There is the animal's monetary value TO THE PERSON, and the animal's sentimental value TO THE PERSON.

    The ruling just allows a greater $ amount to be attached to its loss to make the PERSON "whole again" after the loss or negligent destruction of the animal.

    It has nothing to do with the inherent rights of the animal.
    If somebody could sue for the sentimental value of a wedding ring as opposed to just the market value it does not suddenly bestow rights on the ring, it just gives the suing party more damages to collect.
    Your argument is valid, but it doesn't invalidate mine.

    I don't say this may be a foot in the door to animal rights, but when someone brings that those organizations are supporting a court review of this case, that possibility came to mind.

    Just one more possible side to such cases.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    I don't say this may be a foot in the door to animal rights,

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    If we look past cases as those, in general, this ruling sets a precedent animal rights can stand on to eventually declare animals other than propriety and that can of worms will be open.

    ...

    Hopefully the judging there will satisfy the real need of regress for those wronged, without opening the pandora box of animal rights this may do.

    ???



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    43,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meupatdoes View Post
    ???
    There is much more to what these cases seem to be about.

    When you see other groups involved, if you dig a bit, you will find who really is behind this or that side and why.

    When it comes to some groups, like animal rights ones, they have ways to get others involved in their name, but eventually, if you keep checking who is behind so much that happens in the legal and legislative fields, if it affects animal rights, some of those groups will be there.
    That is what they live for, the sole reason for their existence.

    There is a reason the HSUS keeps a herd of lawyers employed.

    I don't know that this is so here, but when the mention of those groups on one side of this was made, I was wondering if, as in other occasions, that was the case here also, that's all.

    If this was a case without legal ramifications, it would not have been contested and not with the players that are said to be involved.

    As they say around here, if there is a fire, it is good to pay attention to which way the wind is blowing.



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr. 15, 2008
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    If we look past cases as those, in general, this ruling sets a precedent animal rights can stand on to eventually declare animals other than propriety and that can of worms will be open.

    I would say that, maybe not just the money is at stake here as a motivation why the animal industry groups are against this ruling.

    Maybe if someone asked them they would get an answer, rather than guessing automatically "it is all about the money, those robbers", just as assuming they were for horse slaughter, when they were against the ill drawn ban horse slaughter bill, AS WRITTEN.

    I think these and others are situations we need to stand back and be sure of what the issues are, all of them, not let any one side run with the ball and follow them without careful thought.

    Will be interesting to see what happens when brought to court again.
    Hopefully the judging there will satisfy the real need of regress for those wronged, without opening the pandora box of animal rights this may do.

    Well said, Bluey!!!
    We do not have an overpopulation of dogs, we have an under population of responsible dog owners!!!



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 1999
    Location
    Cypress, near Houston, Texas
    Posts
    8,562

    Default

    Bluey, I'm sorry, but your insistence on seeing a conspiracy behind everything related to animals is getting old.

    I happen to know the lawyer involved in this case and have been following it very carefully. This is not about animal rights. It is about property rights and recognizing that pets have legitimate value to their owners beyond their market value.

    The best quote from Randy Turner (the attorney who tried the case and is handling the appeal for free) in his appellate brief is the most compelling reason of all for this case to stand:

    "The supreme court has ruled that a person whose cherished family photographs are destroyed may recover the sentimental value of the photographs. It would be absurd to allow sentimental value damages for a photograph of the family dog but not for the dog itself."
    Visit Sonesta Farms website at www.sonestafarms.com or our FaceBook page at www.facebook.com/sonestafarms. Also showing & breeding Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep. 23, 2010
    Posts
    594

    Default

    This is good. For too long their have been essentially no repercussions for folks who accidentally or intentionally kill other people's cherished pets!



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 1999
    Location
    Cypress, near Houston, Texas
    Posts
    8,562

    Default

    Hey, I just emailed Randy and told him about this thread. His response to Bluey:

    "I have no ties to either organization. No one is paying me a dime. I am doing the case entirely pro bono. As one who owns 3 rescued mutts and 2 rescued cats I assure you that i am not interested in ending pet ownership. This case has nothing to do with animal rights. It simply asks that the law treat companion animals the same as any other kind of property--no better and no worse. If anything, this is a property rights case. Keep in mind that the court that wrote the Medlen opinion is a conservative, all-Republican court; not exactly prone to any type of animal rights extremism."

    I have sent him a link to this thread and, hopefully, he will join us.
    Visit Sonesta Farms website at www.sonestafarms.com or our FaceBook page at www.facebook.com/sonestafarms. Also showing & breeding Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    43,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonesta View Post
    Bluey, I'm sorry, but your insistence on seeing a conspiracy behind everything related to animals is getting old.

    I happen to know the lawyer involved in this case and have been following it very carefully. This is not about animal rights. It is about property rights and recognizing that pets have legitimate value to their owners beyond their market value.

    The best quote from Randy Turner (the attorney who tried the case and is handling the appeal for free) in his appellate brief is the most compelling reason of all for this case to stand:

    "The supreme court has ruled that a person whose cherished family photographs are destroyed may recover the sentimental value of the photographs. It would be absurd to allow sentimental value damages for a photograph of the family dog but not for the dog itself."

    That is fine as far as that case in itself, but then, when others as mentioned are getting involved, well, there is more there than what seems obvious.

    As for the animal rights connection, maybe there is none there, but all that have rights to their animals today should be thankful that some are watching over those rights and the ones trying to take them away.
    To tell me to cease and desist because it doesn't suit some what I have to bring to the discussion is like telling you not to post this story you thought relevant.

    There is plenty that others keep bringing up that I feel about, but I don't go telling them so.

    Edited to add that what he has to say has no relevance to what I was bringing up.
    I was guessing why some of those groups named were present and for one side, that's all, definitively not saying anyone involved this first time around had animal rights connections.

    As you well know, anyone is welcome to participate on COTH, even animal rights followers do.



  17. #17
    Join Date
    May. 10, 2009
    Location
    NC piedmont
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    I agree, in general that it's a great ruling. Why is my mutt from the shelter "worth less" than the purebred (or worse "designer" mutt) that someone (over)paid a zillion dollars for? Rulings like this one could equalize the gap between the family mutt and the purebred show dog that's only worth more because someone was willing to pay big bucks for it.

    OTOH, I do understand where the vets are coming from. Sometimes things happen, and because people seem to have a need to blame others for every little thing, the ruling could open the door for lawsuits for things like a pet dying from complications of surgery (which sometimes happen, even with the best vets in the world) or a bad reaction to a vaccine that the vet couldn't have anticipated. (I nearly lost a cat to a bad reaction; no WAY was it the vet's fault!). Those are, to rational people, obviously different scenarios from the one in this suit, but there are a lot of people who won't see past the dollar signs when tragedy happens.



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct. 16, 2011
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Great job by the court, and so sorry for the people that lost their dog.
    *Wendy* 4.17.73 - 12.20.05



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    That is fine as far as that case in itself, but then, when others as mentioned are getting involved, well, there is more there than what seems obvious.

    As for the animal rights connection, maybe there is none there, but all that have rights to their animals today should be thankful that some are watching over those rights and the ones trying to take them away.
    To tell me to cease and desist because it doesn't suit some what I have to bring to the discussion is like telling you not to post this story you thought relevant.

    There is plenty that others keep bringing up that I feel about, but I don't go telling them so.

    Edited to add that what he has to say has no relevance to what I was bringing up.
    I was guessing why some of those groups named were present and for one side, that's all, definitively not saying anyone involved this first time around had animal rights connections.
    Nobody is telling you to cease and desist we are just saying that there is nothing to worry about in this context from this case. An animal rights discussion is not really applicable to this topic.

    No matter which way you slice it in order to use this case as precedent to further their animal rights agenda the RARAs will have to find a legal premise connecting this case to their agenda and this case and its outcome simply does not provide any premise for that.

    Similarly the case ALSO does not provide any premise for Greenpeace to end all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because the legal ramifications of THIS case are not relevant to or supportive of THAT agenda.



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    43,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meupatdoes View Post
    Nobody is telling you to cease and desist we are just saying that there is nothing to worry about in this context from this case.

    No matter which way you slice it in order to use this case as precedent to further their animal rights agenda the RARAs will have to find a legal premise connecting this case to their agenda and this case and its outcome simply does not provide any premise for that.

    Similarly the case ALSO does not provide any premise for Greenpeace to end all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because the legal ramifications of THIS case are not relevant to or supportive of THAT agenda.
    Right, that has been discussed already, I get it, my guess was wrong, thank you.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 103
    Last Post: Jun. 22, 2014, 11:50 PM
  2. Does the US horse market recover?
    By why not in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: Oct. 22, 2011, 02:41 PM
  3. Dressage and EPM - Any recover to status quo
    By FatCatFarm in forum Dressage
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: Sep. 3, 2011, 11:43 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Feb. 8, 2011, 05:53 PM
  5. Would you pay for sentimental value?
    By fleur de duc in forum Off Course
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Oct. 31, 2008, 11:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness