• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    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"

    Comment


    • #3
      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.
      The Noodlehttp://tiny.cc/NGKmT&http://tiny.cc/gioSA
      Jinxyhttp://tiny.cc/PIC798&http://tiny.cc/jinx364
      Boy Wonderhttp://tiny.cc/G9290
      The Hana is nuts! NUTS!!http://tinyurl.com/SOCRAZY

      Comment


      • #4
        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' :

        Comment


        • #5
          WOW. Good for that court. And it is absolutely disgusting to see who is opposed to the ruling.
          What's wrong with you?? Your cheese done slid off its cracker?!?!

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                The Noodlehttp://tiny.cc/NGKmT&http://tiny.cc/gioSA
                Jinxyhttp://tiny.cc/PIC798&http://tiny.cc/jinx364
                Boy Wonderhttp://tiny.cc/G9290
                The Hana is nuts! NUTS!!http://tinyurl.com/SOCRAZY

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                    I don't say this may be a foot in the door to animal rights,

                    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.

                    ???
                    The Noodlehttp://tiny.cc/NGKmT&http://tiny.cc/gioSA
                    Jinxyhttp://tiny.cc/PIC798&http://tiny.cc/jinx364
                    Boy Wonderhttp://tiny.cc/G9290
                    The Hana is nuts! NUTS!!http://tinyurl.com/SOCRAZY

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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!!!

                        Comment

                        • Original Poster

                          #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This is good. For too long their have been essentially no repercussions for folks who accidentally or intentionally kill other people's cherished pets!

                            Comment

                            • Original Poster

                              #15
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                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.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  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.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Great job by the court, and so sorry for the people that lost their dog.
                                    *Wendy* 4.17.73 - 12.20.05

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      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.
                                      The Noodlehttp://tiny.cc/NGKmT&http://tiny.cc/gioSA
                                      Jinxyhttp://tiny.cc/PIC798&http://tiny.cc/jinx364
                                      Boy Wonderhttp://tiny.cc/G9290
                                      The Hana is nuts! NUTS!!http://tinyurl.com/SOCRAZY

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        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.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X