AHI is dedicated to promoting the health and safety of animals. We value our companion animals and believe that they deserve the continued protection of widely available and affordable health care. The current legal structure for pet litigation works well to allow stable and affordable veterinary care for animals while fairly compensating owners and punishing wrongdoers. Allowing frivolous lawsuits and large emotional distress awards would drive up the cost of care and place millions of pets at risk.
Dangerous Legal Trends
Recently we have begun to see some dangerous legal trends. Efforts are underway to change the legal status of animals in relation to people. A number of organizations have proposed replacing the term “owner” with “guardian” to, in their view, better represent the relationship between pets and people. While this may seem like a harmless case of semantics to some, it would in fact represent a dramatic change in the legal standing of animals.
Another development involves litigation that seeks non-economic damages — like “emotional distress” — in cases involving pets. Decisions in these cases could set dangerous legal precedents that blur the lines between human — pet relationships and parent — child or spousal relationships. At the same time, it would likely drive up the cost of pet care and pet ownership, risking the health and wellbeing of animals.
Pet Guardianship
Guardianship, in legal terms, is a complex fiduciary relationship subject to court approval. While owners have sole rights and responsibilities over the care of their animals, guardianship shares those rights with courts and other third-parties who might be able to claim an interest on the animal’s behalf.
Pets and other domesticated animals have enjoyed a very special legal status in this country. While legally they are considered the property of their owners, they are not in the same legal class as inanimate objects. Instead, pets are protected by an intricate web of federal and state laws governing their care and treatment. These laws protect animals from irresponsible neglect and other forms of abuse.
By contrast, under U.S. law, guardians are not owners; they are merely caretakers who do not have sole authority to make decisions on behalf of pets. Anyone with a self proclaimed interest or expertise could use the courts to force a “caretaker” to make the “best” decision.
Litigation and Emotional Distress Awards
While we value our companion animals as more than just “property”, we also recognize that there is a distinct line between the relationships of human family members and that of humans with their pets.
Only in very limited situations can humans collect emotional distress damages for injury to another person, such as a child or spouse.
If the courts find that a pet has been injured or killed by the neglect or intentional actions of a person, our legal system is already empowered to issue judgements and awards based on a broad range of economic damages — all of which are tangible and measurable. Adding non-economic damages to that award would take us outside the realm of the tangible and into the subjective, arbitrary measurements of human emotions.
Much like in human health care, large non-economic damage claims will dramatically raise costs and reduce availability of care, hampering the ability of pet owners to adequately protect their pets and provide them with care.
AHI values the health and well being of animals and believes that their value as companions is greater than that of an ordinary material possession. We do not feel, however, that setting legal precedent for awards in excess of what can be awarded for human injury and death is appropriate or even ultimately in the best interest of animals.
For more information on this topic, please click on any of the links below:
AHI Brief to Vermont Supreme Court in Non-Economic Damages Case