01-11-2013, 11:33 AM #1
Texas court asks: Is man's best friend priceless?
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — They say all dogs go to heaven. But if they get there before their time, should someone pay up?
The Texas Supreme Court began mulling Thursday whether grieving dog owners should be able to sue for the "emotional value" of man's best friend. It comes after a Fort Worth animal shelter mistakenly euthanized a beloved — but essentially worthless, in terms of actual market value — family Labrador retriever named Avery who ran away from home in 2009.
Lining up in opposition are skittish veterinarians who say letting juries somehow calculate sentimental payouts would set a costly precedent that would ripple nationwide. Justices on Texas' highest civil court appeared skeptical, too, at times of whether dogs should be granted an emotional price tag that humans in many scenarios aren't even afforded under state law.
More at link.....
"The further we (as the human race) grow away from the natural world, the quieter the natural world becomes and the more pathological we become as a culture."........Bernie Krause
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation......which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.......George Washington
01-11-2013, 02:12 PM #2Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
This shouldn't be restricted to dogs. People love their pets and most are members of the family, but 'priceless'.....no.
01-11-2013, 02:20 PM #3
01-11-2013, 07:28 PM #4
What a difficult question.
As the "owner" of about a million animals, I am of the firm opinion that they are worth far more than their pricetag. Grace was breeder purchased, and was a grand total of $1300 (including transportation to me). If someone killed her, I'd be beyond imaginable with grief. The love and loyalty and friendship and companionship she provides me is incalculable...as are the rest of my critters.
If there was an accidental euthanasia, I think that there needs to be some compensation; yes, animals are considered property and as such, defendants are only held liable for replacement costs.
But should a sentient animal be considered property? Should they be compensated for pain and loss of use when a surgery gets botched? And should the "family" of the animal be entitled to some compensation? Excepting the first question, my answer is YES...and in regards to the first question, I don't consider any of my animals property. They're 'family' to me.
I think that perhaps capping the amount of money one could win would eliminate a lot of stupid lawsuits...but I do believe that there should be a place in the court system where living, breathing animals are considered more than just property.
I have a great sofa...but it doesn't love me back the way my babies do. Should the sofa need to be thrown out, it would not cause me any grief to do so. I can't say the same for any one of my critters; even Penguin, who is feral and physically severely handicapped, provides me with love, even though I can't touch her.
Just my thoughts, and as always, jmo.
Herding CatsWhen you find yourself in the position to help somebody, do not feel burdened. Rather, feel happy and blessed because God is answering that person's prayer through you. In that moment, you are God's Angel - His door to reach through and bring light to someone who is struggling in the darkness.
Be God's Light. Be God's love. Be an answered prayer. Be God's Door.
01-11-2013, 08:31 PM #5Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Palm Springs
How about I produce the vet bills I've paid to keep my 14-year-old cat alive? That ought to be a hint as to how much he's worth to me.
(Just to be clear, I would never force a cat to live if his quality of life were irreversibly impaired. My cat is as healthy and active as he's ever been (except for being deaf), but there was a rough patch about 3 years back that took a very expensive year to diagnose and resolve.)
01-11-2013, 09:03 PM #6Former Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Georgia -- Redneck Country
NOTHING and NO ONE human or animal is priceless (unless of course it is a death row inmate, then apparently they are worth tens of millions and basically considered "priceless").
Negligence should absolutely, positively be penalized whether the victim is a human or non-human animal.
I can see why the vets are nervous, sheesh I don't want to pay 5 or 10 times the cost for vet visits or surgeries due to crazy malpractice insurance either, BUT if vets are just plain negligent or if cities have morons at the animal shelter abusing and euthanizing animals without care, then yes penalties are in order to stop the negligent behavior.
By wfgodot in forum Crimes in the NewsReplies: 0Last Post: 05-15-2012, 01:00 PM
By LinasK in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat NewsReplies: 10Last Post: 05-06-2008, 09:40 PM
By angelmom in forum Up to the MinuteReplies: 26Last Post: 03-26-2007, 07:37 PM
By PlasmaFiend024 in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat NewsReplies: 12Last Post: 02-03-2006, 09:31 PM