Liability for damage to animals (pets)

[sneuberg]

Jurisdiction

New York

I'd like to know what a person's liability for damage to an animal might be and if their is any limitation to the amount.

On the Peoples Court people are always suing for ridiculous amounts for used cars that are wrongfully damaged. But they are never awarded any more than the Blue book value of the car no matter what kind of emotional attachment they had to it or how much it would take to repair. So I wonder why it would be any different with dogs which I thought are not supposed to be anything more than property.

The case was about a Cockapoo which got tore up to the tune of $7000 in medical by a Rottweiler off its leash. The plaintive was awarded the max of $5000. There was no discussion of the value of the dog. How is this right? About the most a Cockapoo goes for on the Internet is $1500. Is the People Court is going by the law and if so what law make this exception for pets to be treated differently than a car.

 

[army judge]

I'd like to know what a person's liability for damage to an animal might be and if their is any limitation to the amount.

On the Peoples Court people are always suing for ridiculous amounts for used cars that are wrongfully damaged. But they are never awarded any more than the Blue book value of the car no matter what kind of emotional attachment they had to it or how much it would take to repair. So I wonder why it would be any different with dogs which I thought are not supposed to be anything more than property.

The case was about a Cockapoo which got tore up to the tune of $7000 in medical by a Rottweiler off its leash. The plaintive was awarded the max of $5000. There was no discussion of the value of the dog. How is this right? About the most a Cockapoo goes for on the Internet is $1500. Is the People Court is going by the law and if so what law make this exception for pets to be treated differently than a car.

TV court shows arbitrate, they don't adjudicate.

On a TV court show, both parties get round trip airfare, hotel stay, paid local transportation, a generous meal allowance, and anywhere from $200 to $500 (paid in advance) to purchase your wardrobe, appearance fees, and an award POT.

The POT might be $5000 for one case, $10000 for another.

The amount you receive depends on if you win or lose, but EVERYONE get paid.

Its a sweet deal, if you get selected, because win or lose; you're gonna get paid, have a short vacay, and a 15 minutes of fame.

Naw, mate, TV court shows are entertainment and easy enrichment for the "contestants".

Some shows you have to know something, or do something to get paid, on TV court shows, all you gotta do is show up and act stupid.

Last comment - sometimes cases are hard to find, and the "participants" (they call them "litigants) - they're actors. LOL

 

[adjusterjack]

Is the People Court is going by the law

No. None of those court shows go by the law. They go by the entertainment value of the dramatic decisions. The parties to the case don't pay a nickel of the judgment. The judgment is paid by the sponsors of the show.

In real life a pet is property, like a TV set. If you kill or damage (injure) a pet via your negligence, the owner is entitled to the cost of repairs (treatment) or the Actual Cash Value of the pet, whichever is less.

That being said, there has been an evolution in the laws of damages for injuries to animals that has been moving away from that doctrine. You can read about it in the following articles:

Overview of Damages for Injury to Animals - Pet losses | Animal Legal & Historical Center

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 | Animal Legal & Historical Center

 

[ElleMD]

Courts are not limited to just compensating for the loss of the property itself, but can award actual damages incurred. It isn't all or nothing, and frequently damage awards are subject to reductions based on how much the aggrieved party was responsible for what happened. For example, if the owner of the injured dog should have had the pet on a leash and because they did not, their pet got attacked, they may be found to be 30% liable, so the owner of the attacking dog might only be required to pay 70% of the damages.

Most often with personal property, you are correct that you are only entitled to the fair market value of the lost, damaged, or stolen item. Usually in these cases the "damage" is the loss of that item.

 

[sneuberg]

No. None of those court shows go by the law. They go by the entertainment value of the dramatic decisions. The parties to the case don't pay a nickel of the judgment. The judgment is paid by the sponsors of the show.

In real life a pet is property, like a TV set. If you kill or damage (injure) a pet via your negligence, the owner is entitled to the cost of repairs (treatment) or the Actual Cash Value of the pet, whichever is less.

That being said, there has been an evolution in the laws of damages for injuries to animals that has been moving away from that doctrine. You can read about it in the following articles:

Overview of Damages for Injury to Animals - Pet losses | Animal Legal & Historical Center

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 | Animal Legal & Historical Center

Thank you for your reply. This is exactly the information I was looking for.