How Much is Fido Worth
by Cherie Travis | Oct 31, 2007
Valuation of Pets in Animal Law
To most pet owners, their pets are invaluable to them for their friendship and companionship. Yet in the case of wrongful death of the animal, the courts don’t regard pets as friends and companions–they are regarded as property. Illinois vets, lawyers and lawmakers are looking at ways to make the system work better for everyone.
On Thursday, October 25, the DePaul University College of Law & The International Institute for Animal Law hosted a Symposium entitled, “How Much is Fido/ Fluffy Worth? Animal Valuation Issues Raised by the Pet Food Recall and other Litigation.” The panel included: Victor Schwartz, attorney and co-author of the nation’s leading torts casebook, Prosser, Wade & Schwartz’s Torts, as well as coauthor of the Pepperdine Law Review article, “Non-Economic Damages in Pet Litigation: The Serious Need to Preserve a Rational Rule;” Christopher Green, attorney, Vice-Chair of the American Bar Association Animal Law Committee, Chair of the ABA Veterinary Malpractice Subcommittee, author of the Animal Law Review article, “The Future of Veterinary Malpractice Liability in the Care of Companion Animals;” Margit Livingston, DePaul University College of Law Professor, author of the Nebraska Law Review Article, “The Calculus of Animal Valuation: Crafting a Viable Remedy;” and Jay Edelson, Blim and Edelson, Chicago attorney litigating a class action lawsuit against Menu Foods for wrongful death of companion animals from tainted pet food.
The discussion centered around how courts ascertain the value of companion animals in wrongful death cases. Historically animals have been considered personal property and courts have given plaintiffs only “replacement value” or “fair market value” for an animal. Arguably, there is little or no “fair market value” for a family pet. Some courts have allowed plaintiffs whose pets have been killed to establish the pet’s “value to the owner,” a classification which places companion animals into a special category of property with no fair market value, but only emotional or sentimental value, such as family photographs and trophies.
Some plaintiffs have sought damages for the emotional distress and loss of companionship suffered by the destruction of the pet, damages which would be available to them in cases involving wrongful death to family members. Courts have rejected these theories of recovery because, since the law classifies animals as personal property, a person cannot suffer loss of companionship or emotional distress from destruction of property, such as a piece of furniture or a car.
In 2000, Tennessee became the first state in the country to enact a law expressly providing for recovery of damages for loss of companionship resulting from the intentional or negligent destruction of a pet. Tenn. Code Ann. 44-17-403 (2000) caps the damages at $5,000, but veterinarians are exempted from this law.
After that, Illinois became a national leader, passing a law allowing for up to $25,000 in damages for pet owners in wrongful death or injury cases, but limits its application to cases involving the defendant’s aggravated cruelty or torture to the animal. Acts of negligence, such as veterinary malpractice, are excluded. Under this law, damages include, but are not limited to, “the monetary value of the animal, veterinary expenses incurred on behalf of the animal, any other expenses incurred by the owner in rectifying the effects of the cruelty, pain, and suffering of the animal, and emotional distress suffered by the owner.”
Lawyers and veterinarians will be watching to see how the class action lawsuit against Menu Foods involving the pet food recall will further define the future of damages available for loss of pets.