Number of malpractice cases spikes ... for pets

I can see the desire to push the "pets are more than just property" side of this but from a strictly legal perspective I don't see how any reasonable laws or awards could be made. How do we quantify "pain and suffering" in a pet that can't communicate or quantify that pain or suffering? Is the pet in a lot of pain oif the pet's "guardian" says it is?

We have a hard enough time quantifying human pain and suffering. Trying to do the same for a species that can't communicate their thoughts just creates a system ripe for major abuse.

Oy, this is a can of worms. Here are a few scenarios.

A is a seeing-eye dog, who is killed. The circumstances don't matter; we're going to assume whatever other party there is, is fully, 100% responsible. What's the value? The seeing-eye dog is probably a purebred (hence, a puppy costs a few hundred, sometimes as much as a grand). Plus there's training, which is estimated at being a few hundred or as much as a grand. Plus the change in the blind person's quality of life - should that be included? If I'm the blind person's lawyer, I'm absolutely going to argue that their relationship with A was so special that there can never be another equivalent replacement. If I'm the other party's lawyer, I'm going to claim that there would inevitably have been a time when A would have died and another seeing-eye dog would have been obtained. But is there less value if "property" isn't permanent?

B is not a qualified dog in any manner, but has learned when her master has seizures. With no training whatsoever, B has become a seizure-alert dog (yes, this happens; dogs sometimes figure this out on their own). B is killed. What's B's value? Let's also say B was a mixed-breed, worth perhaps $25 at a shelter. She had no training. But the diminishment in quality of life for her owner is as bad if not worse than for A's owner. After all, it's a lot harder to train a seizure-alert dog. Can you replace B?

C is a police dog who sniffs drugs or fire accelerants or looks for missing persons or the like. C is also killed. Again, there are training costs. There may or may not be actual costs for the dog - many police dogs are shelter rescues. But what about the loss to society? Isn't this (for lack of a more compassionate term) piece of equipment of value? How readily can C be replaced?

Now let's look at D. D's a family pet, loved and cared for like millions of dogs in the world. D isn't a hero or therapy dog. D is a mixed breed, like B. D sleeps in the bed and begs at the table and pulls at the leash and does a myriad of regular dog-like things. Now D is killed. But here's a twist - D's owner commits suicide because of the loss. What are the damages? What's the value? Is the value just in the loss of a $25 "object"? Or is there something more there?

I don't profess to know the answers here. This is a very complex area of the law. Many states are beginning to recognize a difference between dogs and nonliving chattel, such as automobiles. I say it's about time, but I do sometimes wonder where the line should be drawn.

jespah

The line is drawn at whatever the traffic will bear. If this becomes law the insurance rates for veterinarians will sky rocket along with cost of services. Who will end up being the loser, the pet owners.
What about cats? For us cat lovers they are just as precious as dogs. In fact more so.
In this nation we seem to ever expanding the reasons to bring suite.

Au - The costs are already happening. I was talking with a friend last night and apparently her dog has bone cancer in it's lower jaw. The vet told her that they needed to do a biopsy which means putting the dog under and surgically removing a piece of the jawbone.

To do this the vet wanted 75% of the total cost for the surgery up front and all her prior bills had to be paid in full (because the vet is afraid that if the dog dies during surgery the bill will never be paid.. and this is standard policy for everyone. It doesn't matter what you credit rating is or how much money you have..). At this point she is planning on going through with the biopsy but they've alreday told her that if the tests come back positive they'll have to remove the dogs entire bottom jaw.

That surgery will run her alomost $5000 if it's needed and again, she has to come up with 75% up front.

Teh result of this is that she has already made the decision that this dog she's had for 12 years and treated like her own child is "just a dog". If the tests come back positive she'll put the dog to sleep to aviod the costs of additional surgery.

As costs keep going up for pet care more and more people will just have their pets put to sleep instead of taking better care of them.

fishin, the pet's death causes the owner pain and suffering.

If that's the case lil k then it's a standard we currently don't even allow for humans. You can't sue for someone else's pain and suffering, you can only sue for your own. The old laws that allowed you to sue for loss of compainship are pretty much gone nowadays too.

I should clarify that because it doesn't sound right! lol

What I meant was you can't sue for YOUR pain and suffering as a result of events that happened to another person.

I understood - good point.

in states with no-fault auto insurance you can indeed sue for your pain and suffering related to someone else's accident. it's a pain in the patootie, but it's the way things have gone. you can also get psychological treatment as a result of trauma someone else suffered in a car accident. another pain. <<sigh>>

it's not that enormous a jump to claiming for human suffering relating to loss of an animal.

it's not that long ago that california changed their law in re pet ownership to change the terminology to guardian.

not sure how i feel about it, but i see the changes coming across my desk.

California. Maybe this coincides with someone's throwing a lady's little dog into freeway traffic a year or so ago.

So if you get in a car accident I can sue for pain and suffering because I feel badly about it?

Yup. And if my insured is at fault, I get to explain the size of the stinkin' cheque to my v.p. Sometimes I really hate U.S. lawyers.

Wow! I'm going to start filing lawsuits all over the place then. I feel badly for lots of people.

<maybe I'll see some accidents on my way home from work today! woohoo! lol>

good gawd - you're going to witness the accident? there's money in that too!

i've got a claim for treatment right now for people who didn't see an accident, weren't in an accident, but heard about it!

That almost reminds me of people when they see a city bus accident enter by the back door lay down on the floor and claim that they were hurt in it. Believe me it happens.

Maybe we'll all be lucky and people like that will all die from excessive paper cuts while they are filling out the paperwork. What a con job!

Damn.

Whatever the other ramifications, I am very worried about the effect such a decision could have on the cost of veterinary care, especially as the standard of care for companion animals is changing very rapidly.

I think we've already seen the cost of vet services go up, in anticipation of these lawsuits beginning to settle.

I'll see if I can find something on LawDesk (when I get back) on this subject.

Rescued kittens were treated by a wonderful rescue group, fees paid by the group.

My argument was the animals were born wild, receiving plenty of disease fighting genes from their mom, plus thier immune systems were not being helped by weekly boosters for any number of diseases they'd probably never contact. They agreed and changed their policy. Good people.


Just as we research treatment from a medical doctor for ourselves and our kids, we should also be vigilent regarding who our companion animals are treated by. There are many excellent vets, but there are some vets that overmedicate and perform unnecessary procedures simply because the can.