It's even more often vets who make this argument. As I know you know, the AVMA and it's unsavory allies in the Pet Products industry fly lobbyists around the country defeating all proposed legislation that would recognize something beyond mere market value for our pets.

I can simply rewrite the paragraph:

As judges side with vets who argue that our pets have no value, it certainly means less pressure and incentive for vets to practice safely. I wonder how many people would keep trusting vets if they knew how duplicitous veterinarians are about the value of our pets?

the law is an ass......mr bumble

So, Central Bark's business model is designed on "economic waste"? It's "wasteful" to spend more than a dog is worth, apparently--so no one should ever take their dogs to Central Bark.

Last I checked, you couldn't contract negligence away, no matter what your contract *tries* to say. Which, I suppose, is why they amended their motion.

Another little-known option for pet owners whose pets were seriously harmed by a product or service is small claims court. Here is a recent article regarding a case against Hartz for harm that was allegedly caused by one of their flea and tick products:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/03/hartz_mountain_court.html

"... reasonably incurred veterinary expenses."

I think it should all boil down to reasonableness. Central Bark should have to reimburse a pet owner for reasonable expenses that they would not have incurred but for Central Bark's negligence.

Central Bark's argument, at base, is that it's unreasonable to spend more on a pet than the pet's economic worth, that any expenses exceeding the pet's economic worth are unreasonable.

But this is so contrary to the community norm as to be ridiculous. I have cats; their economic worth isn't much, if anything. Should I have considered that when I got them spayed and neutered? Vaccinated? Should I consider it when I take them in for their annual exams? When I buy them food, litter and other supplies? Apparently, Central Bark thinks I should, but that's not reality.

One purpose of law is to enforce community norms. Our norms require that Central Bark pay up.

The best way I can work through stuff like this is to equate it to some other item besides an animal.

In this case, we'll relate it to a car. A customer brings a 1999 Hyundai that is at it's end of life stage to have it serviced. During the service, the mechanic accidentally puts a scratch on the side of the car. No worries, since the owner puts very little value in the appearance of the car, or the car itself for that matter.

Same mechanic, same garage, only the customer has a 1965 Mustang with the original, unblemished paint job. Now the scratch is a big deal. Why? I mean, to me, it's property. It's a piece of metal.

The difference is the worth to the owner.

Now, back to our case. The worth of this dog can be demonstrated by how much time, money, and emotional energy is spent with the dog. It can be demonstrated with what the dog does, the purpose it serves. Our pets do serve a purpose for us, you know. Mine replaces a therapist .

So I think that to say it's property is quite alright, but that property's value must be set. You can't replace a 1965 Mustang with just any car, and you certainly can't replace a beloved pet with just another animal.

So, bottom line, property, sure, but how the value of the property is being assessed is flawed.

Good point about an animal's worth to an owner EAB. I have to say I agree with you on that one. Also this view is starting to be accepted in some jurisdictions in regards to companion animals having an "intrinsic value" that can be recovered. This view has been held by courts in Florida and California, perhaps some other states but what comes to mind is the California case where a 39,000 dollar judgment for veterinary malpractice and the death of a dog was upheld by the state supreme court.

Although all of these decisions have dealt with damages in regards to the death of a companion animal. The courts essentially view the pet as special property like a family heirloom or photo album that despite a low "market value" it has a very high value to the plaintiff.

It would be a step in the right direction to have this reasoning applied to pets who have been injured or perhaps "damaged" is the proper term to apply since they are viewed as property. Either way I would love to see the intrinsic value method used to allow for the recovery of veterinary expenses for injured pets.

That would actually be one of the nicer things I have been called.

I also agree with EAB. In my case, my dog is a mutt, but his value to me is ridiculously disproportionate. As EAB said, he really does save me from therapy. I don't know if I would be able to maintain my intelligent, educated and level headed perona if someone intentionally or through neglect hurt my dog.

I have actually warned people, because I'm a Muslim, not to say that I should just get rid of him or put him to sleep, he's only a dog after all, that I may physically harm them if they ever utter those words to me again, lol. I made a commitment to provide and protect him until he passes over or I do and then I've made provisions for that too.

My income bracket doesn't allow for such extravagances as a "dogie birthday party" but I do buy special foods for him and when I participated in Christmas I also got all of the dogs a stocking with fun stuff in it. They can see that everyone is doing something fun and they want to participate too.

I just can't think of them as property, even if logically I know the powers that be do. I think going about it the way EAB suggested is really going to become the norm in the future, hopefully. I am a Florida native and they already have some wonderfully steep penalties for cruelty.

Sorry, got carried away, :)
Kathleen

As much as I love dogs, I would hate to imagine how high vet fees would climb if vets start having to pay astronomical malpractice insurance costs.

Another thing that sounds good, but, in the end, is just as potentially bad as "guardian vs owner."

Regardless whether Central Bark is found liable or not, the very fact that they are challenging this is a huge negative. I'd never take my pet to a place that wouldn't step up to the plate and pay for the injury caused by negligence, and I'm sure most pet owners wouldn't either. Also, if my pet was injured at the vet's office they should also just fix the problem without question. Makes no sense to hire a lawyer when the good will and admittance of responsibility on the part of the daycare facility would make customers feel comfortable about leaving their pet there.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these 'treat your pets like family!' businesses don't really believe what they say about pets, they're just pandering to people that they feel are gullible and overemotional enough to pay money for activities for their animals. The proof is in cases like this where a business would rather pay a lawyer than for surgery of a dog who was harmed because they didn't use proper fencing.

Looks like you guys could use a happier story. My dog recently received medical care from Monroe Veterinary Clinic Monroe, Michigan with no out of pocket expenses. I am laid off from work and so is my roommate. Our dog needed a growth removed after it became inflamed and burst open. I went to the Vet office and explained my situation.
After finding out I am a graphic designer on lay off, they agreed to do surgery and testing, office visits , etc etc ...in exchange for me building them a web site http://www.monroeveterinaryclinic.com . I am happy, my dog is healthy, and they are happy too. Thank god for good people like the Vets at Monroe Veterinary Clinic.

Does the business (Central Bark) have liability insurance? Just wondering if it was being pursued in this manner courtesy of an insurance company.

Illinois Appellate Court says dog owner can recover vet expenses, Illinois Appellate Court. Leith v. Frost, No. 4-07-0964. Dec. 31, 2008.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-appellate-decisions/11753397-1.html

"The plaintiff sued the defendant and the judge ruled in his favor. However, based upon testimony from a breeder he awarded the plaintiff just $200 as the "fair market value" of the dachshund.

The plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed the verdict, but ordered the defendant to pay the full amount of veterinary expenses."

"A reasonable person in defendant's position should have reasonably foreseen that if his dogs escaped from their enclosure and injured plaintiffs' family pet, plaintiffs would feel compelled to pay considerably more than a nominal amount for veterinary care. It is common knowledge that people are prepared to make great sacrifices for the well-being and continued existence of their household pets, to which they have become deeply attached. ...

"'[W]hen an injured pet dog with no discernable market value is restored to its previous health, the measure of damages may include, but is not limited to, the reasonable and customary cost of necessary veterinary care and treatment.' In the present case, plaintiffs have demonstrated how much [their dachshund] is worth to them by paying $4,784 for the dog's veterinary care. Plaintiffs are not claiming a windfall; this is the amount they actually have paid or have contractually obligated themselves to pay," the court said.

Value to pet owners is also validated using the experience of Katrina. Many people refused to leave their pets behind when ordered to evacuate. Some died and some lived to tell the tale of their feeling of responsibility to the pets they loved. They readily abandoned property including family treasures but wouldn't abandon their pets. Today there is a law that emergency evacuations must include provisions for pets. That would no be so if pets only had a nominal value to people. This fact should also affirm a different value to a pet than other property.

And the fact that people pay the Central Bark Doggy Day Care much more to care for their dogs than CBDDC wants to recognize as the property value of the dogs they care for, makes a case at the very least that the ongoing value of the damaged dog's vet bills is a least no less than the ongoing value their customers pay to have the company care for dogs. They can't argue that their care is more valuable than vet care. They are in the business of providing care as are vets. It makes no sense that they shouldn't be responsible for care of the dog that is now needed because of their negligence.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddus50statesurvey_companion_animals.htm

Animal Legal & Historical Center
Publish Date: 2007

DETERMINING THE VALUE OF COMPANION ANIMALS IN WRONGFUL HARM OR DEATH CLAIMS: A SURVEY OF U.S. DECISIONS AND AN ARGUMENT FOR THE AUTHORIZATION TO RECOVER FOR LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP IN SUCH CASES.

An interesting compilation of cases on the subject. And in the section on Florida there may be a split in decisions. I think I would try going to a newspaper column like the Problem Solver in the Chicago Tribune. I think this is a case where public opinion might prove helpful. Not everything needs to be legislated to be solved. And courts are also affected by public opinion. Some thought judges were more likely to uphold animal cruelty laws when they looked at the audience and saw a lot of concerned people present. An informal group began attending court in these cases and began publicizing the rulings.

Articsticdesign performed a barter transaction with her vet -- the vet treated the dog, and Artistic performed *her* professional specialty. She did not get her pet treated "for free."

There's value, and then there's value. Last year I spent close to $4k (!!!) on vet care, mostly diagnostics, for a cat that died anyway. He was only 9 years old but had a tumor on his spine, which rendered him unable to walk. I feel I was lucky to be able to afford this, and had he had a reasonably treatable condition, I would have paid for treatment.

However, if I were barely making ends meet, I would have simply had my dearly-loved cat put down as soon as it became obvious that his diagnosis & treatment would have cost more than I could afford.

As someone noted, Central Bark is providing a value-added service, and for them to then turn around and say that their liability for actual costs was limited is ridiculous. I don't believe in "pain & suffering" awards for pets, but actual vet costs in this case are clearly not unreasonable.

"P" made very interesting coments along with research.

The Amish, who have many puppy mills, also consider dogs as property. Yet recent cases in courts in PA have convicted some of these Puppy-millers for cruelty.

So let's see... The definition as to those laws is not clear. If dogs are property, then the laws for cruelty would be different. If dogs are companion animals, then the laws are correct.

But in the case of acidents-like a car, again-the definition is clear...

If dogs are injured at a facility, etc., and they are considered property, then they damage should be reimbursed. like with insurance for a damaged car.

If the same conditions as in the above-noted paragragh exists, and the dog is considered a companion animal, then like insurance for people in the car accident, it would pay for the medical expenses.

So the defintion of a dog being property or a companion animal, to me, is very clear in this case under discussion. JMHO

I look forward to the day, which I believe will be in my lifetime, that the elimination of the double-standard of companion animals will become recognizable in all circumstances.

This will have a huge effect on quality of care, honesty, negligence, and deliberate cruelty and mistreatment.

Society says they are ready, as evidenced by the legislation passed for farm animals, humane euthanasia laws, toughening up cruelty penalties "dog fighting", etc.

Sure, we have a long, long way to go~~ but we will see it!

I live in NZ and in a case like this I'm pretty sure it would come down to personal responsibility. If Central Bark decided it was their fault, they'd probably agree to pay at least some, for the sake of good customer service. However, if the owner agreed that it wasn't really anyone's fault, they would have to be ready to pay their own way.

I don't know which way is better - lawyers and stress and fees, or trying to rely on the good hearts of people you don't know. It's just an interesting observation on the differences between liability in the US and NZ.

Also, the writer implies that it was Central Barks fault (by employee negligence) that Bettis jumped and got hurt... but nowhere does it actually state an explicit action of the employee which caused Bettis to get hurt. He was put in the holding pen, which they probably used every day in normal procedures. So was the fact that Bettis got hurt trying to jump out really Central Bark's 'fault'? Or was Bettis just the first unlucky dog to try to jump out?

Enalc, Central Bark accepted responsibility for the dog's safety, and that includes keeping him properly contained. That's just basic to what they do. People expect the dogs to play together, so there is some degree of unavoidable risk that a dogfight might break out. Putting a dog in a pen that isn't high enough to SAFELY contain that dog, in clear view of activity that the dog can reasonably be expected to be interested in, is negligence. Central Bark apparently isn't even arguing that it isn't negligence. They're just arguing that their liability is limited to the "fair market value" of the dog, despite the fact that their entire business rests on the fact that we DON'T regard our dogs the same way we do our toasters.

I agree with Eilis, the day care accepted payment for services of caring for the dog in the owner's absence. The day care's negligence (putting the unattended dog in a picket fence enclosure, which he then tried to jump out of) seems to be a pretty open and shut case to me.
Even if the dog is property, and not worth a lot of money in the "market", doesn't the day care have an obligation to repair the damage caused by their negligence?

I have no love lost for lawyers. Sorry to lawyers out there but I have seen some really off the wall stuff done.

However any lawyer that kicks ass for animals has my vote.
In fact the lawyers for the other side have been pretty tame about a defense. So please kick some ass on this rotten company and make them pay for the injury.

One question: if they state on their website that a pets value is so much more than property: isn't that an indication that this company also put a high value on pets? Can't that be considered as an admission of this companies belief that pets are the eqivalent of "family members" or does that even matter in the eyes of the law?