I feel sorry for the owner, but she doesn’t seem to consider the implications of what she is writing: “ At least fifteen organizations and cities had filed amicus briefs opposing Turner’s argument. Among them were the American Pet Products Association, the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, and the American Kennel Club. They argued that if pet owners could sue for sentimental value, veterinary malpractice insurance premiums would skyrocket, and pet product companies would be hit with class action lawsuits every time someone’s cat got sick from a can of food. ”

If all those things happened, the pet owners are the ones who would end up paying the increased cost, meaning poor people would find it harder to own and care for their pets. That’s seems like a reasonable trade-off, particularly when the risk is under the owner’s control. There is also a lot of passive language in this article to avoid the owner taking responsibility - the dog “got out” of the owner’s control - whereas if it happened to my pet, I would feel that I hadn’t properly secured my pet

Vague assertions of increased cost are not meaningful without knowing how other states and countries handle it.

I'm mainly pushing back at the idea the author couldn't have thought about what she was writing.

Here is an article about how other states handle it: https://www.animallaw.info/article/determining-value-compani...

Interestingly, Tennessee and Florida are among the most progressive in terms of recognizing the non-market value of pets. Though this document has not been updated since 2011, so some information may be out of date. I believe NY and IL may have passed laws since then regarding this subject.

That is why it must be handled by the legislature (though good luck with the worthless good-for-nothings in the Texas legislature). Realistically, you'd probably want to limit liability for veterinarians and pet product manufacturers to a certain dollar amount, to prevent costs from spiraling out of control. The courts do not have the ability to create nuanced rules like that, only broad legal principles.

A pet is not a chattel to it's owner(s). It's part of the family.

One searing memory that I can't unsee is a video clip taken during the New Orleans evacuations after Katrina. A poodle is jumping up at the closed door of a bus and obviously bewildered that he can't get in and be with his owner.

I have thought many times about that video. If I couldn't smuggle that pet on board, I would hope I wouldn't be able to abandon him/her, and we'd take our chances together.

I know I'd never be able (or wanting) to live with having left my dogs behind. I don't fear my own death _that_ much. I'm here for them until they cross, only after that I can do whatever I want with my life.

Legally though, it is chattel :/ I agree it shouldn't be.

The American Humane Association is upset about a scene in the acclaimed documentary Roger & Me in which a rabbit is clubbed to death, gutted and skinned.

"I had a very hard time with that when we edited it," Moore admitted. "We put it in, we took it out . . . then we just had to say, 'Look, this is how it is.' . . . One more thing," Moore added.

"Two minutes later in the film, a black man was shot. I had no calls, I never see anyone get out of the theater and leave. It's an image we've learned to accept because we see it on TV.

"I received a lot more sympathy and compassion for that little bunny than that black man. I guess you could say that the bunny didn't have a gun. Anyway, that was my thought process as we were editing it."

I don’t doubt the hurt those folks feel is very real.

But I have trouble thinking that opening the legal system to “sentimental value” lawsuits is going to do anything other than just introduce a lot of lawsuits…

> Every single person who’s called me about wanting to sue because their dog was killed did not care about the money. They wanted to send a message. They want to vindicate their beloved pet. They don’t want this person to get off scot-free. They want some kind of justice.

So it would be a legal cost for everyone and nobody suing really wants the money.

Pet law is surprisingly complicated: https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-legal...

I would do anything for my dogs, doesn't matter what it costs, I love both of them so much and can't imagine not having them in our family. They are family.

ditto, and in our case, it's dogs and cats, one big multispecies pack.

So in Texas does that mean if I shoot my neighbour’s mutt because they bark all day I only am on the hook for $50?

This is totally insane. Dogs are part of families and should be treated thusly under the law.

The current laws on the book in Texas seem like a great way to lead people towards vigilante justice.

No, Depending on the specifics you probably will be charged criminally - the statues you would be charged with will vary by jurisdiction but discharging a weapon into your neighbor's yard is, largely, very much illegal. So is intentionally harming other people's pets - even if it's legally classified only as intentionally destroying someone else's property. Animal cruelty charges might also be a possibility depending on the specifics.

You'd likely also lose a lawsuit if the owner sued you for vet bills incurred trying to save the dogs life.

What is insane is that the dog is left out to bark all day and you can't do anything about it. If it's such a member of a family, why let him bark outside all day?

Am I the only "dog/cat person" annoyed at the author's incompetence with her vulnerable puppy?

It seems like the author failed to understand that the world is FULL of incompetent people who present dangers to others, in this case resulting in violent death of her puppy.

Find a new lawyer:

a) you still can and should file suit for the $50. And ask for a Jury trial. Sure it will cost you $10K+, but it will cost that other "owner" at least that much or more to defend. It will NOT be pleasant for them. They may have to capitulate and settle if they cannot afford a lawyer, if that's the cheaper option. The only reason not to is if they are so poor they don't even have $10K or so rich they won't care. Otherwise, the defendant in a lawsuit is already in a very weak position if they have something to lose. Would their homeowners/umbrella coverage pay anything?

b) oh yes, start with $50 for the animal + emotional trauma of say $100,000 (you) due to gross negligence including presumably violating a leash law. Such a cute dog! Dogs as cute as that can go on to have $1M modeling careers. See causing that incident +whatever other rubbish like that a good lawyer can dredge up is on top of the value of the dog. You will end up settling for a lot less, but you can sue for anything. You may not make a lot of money but you can definitely be seriously punitive to the "owner" and may (eventually) break even or better.

c) if you don't have the backing, do a gofundme to pay the fees

d) pester the fuck out of the DA to press additional criminal charges

e) get a representative and/or press interest. might even eventually change those laws

If you are serious about fixing those asshole "owners" who let this happen, you can take a pretty good crack at it.

I hate it when slimy lawyers use these tactics against the "good guys", but there are times like these that it would be useful.

> emotional trauma of say $100,000

AFAIU, Texas strictly limits the scope of negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Negligent infliction of emotional distress is a fairly recent judicial invention. Being one of the first (the first, at least in the U.S., per Wikipedia) to recognize a claim in the absence of physical injury to the plaintiff, AFAIU it's much broader in California than many other jurisdictions. (EDIT: And even under California law this may be a difficult claim to make.) This is probably why Texas lawyers simply dismissed the possibility out-of-hand.

The point is not necessarily to win - the point is to cause the other guy to expend resources. Plus the crap-shoot of a jury trial. I'm guessing that nobody is going to take this case on contingency, but 100% that there's a clever ambulance chaser even in TX who can wreck people if that's what the author wants to do.

If you're paying for it, you can find a lawyer to wreck someone's life. Again, if that's what you want to do.

On the other hand, I have a family member who had this exact same thing happen. Except it was their other dog that did it, and that dog was also a beloved family pet. Rough is what that situation is. And what they did is feel really bad but get over it. They did keep the other dog. They won't be getting another toy breed for a long time either. Very sad all around.

So revenge is a great fantasy. If the author wants to do all that stuff, I'm positive 100% they could do something pretty nasty. But in the real world we often have to just ... get over it. Probably healthier, but me - I'd sue the bejesus out of them, just for spite.