My Dog's Love- What's It Worth?

[+ Lucky]

Can a monetary value be placed on the love your dog has for you, or your love for your dog? This is one of the questions asked today in the Vermont Supreme Court in MONTPELIER, Vt. Dogs have traditionally been treated as property, so, if you lose your dog, tough luck, you can only get a small amount of money in compensation.

But, all of us dog lovers know better. A dog's love is priceless, for sure, but can't they at least try to compensate for it?

 

 

(AP) – Vermont's highest court is being asked to decide what a dog's love is worth.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday was to hear a case that began in July 2003, when Denis and Sarah Scheele, who were visiting relatives, let their mixed-breed dog wander into Lewis Dustin's yard and he fatally shot it.

Now the Scheeles are asking the court to carve out a new legal doctrine that a dog's owners can sue for emotional distress and loss of companionship, just like parents can when they lose children.

"We're still working toward having the courts recognizing the true value of companion animals. They're members of the family, not mere property," Sarah Scheele, 58, said from her home in Annapolis, Md., on Wednesday before flying north for the court hearing.

Dustin's lawyer, David Blythe, said Dustin never intended to kill the Scheeles' dog, Shadow, and "has always regretted that it happened." He said Dustin fired an air pellet rifle at the dog in hopes of scaring it off the lawn of his home in Northfield, a community of about 6,000 residents just south of Montpelier in the heart of the state's Green Mountains.

The shot Dustin fired penetrated the dog's chest and severed an aorta, and the dog died on the way to a veterinarian's office.

Dustin, 76, has said he was aiming at the dog's rear end. He did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Wednesday.

He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of animal cruelty and was given a year probation. He also was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and pay $4,000 in restitution to the Scheeles.

But the Scheeles weren't done.

Read the full story:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/17/vermont-supreme-court-to-_n_395402.html

[+ Charlie]

I love dogs, and the loss of my own dogs has usually been emotionally wrenching for me. However, this is an area where it seems impossible to calculate an appropriate value for that emotional loss, or to determine how genuine the loss is for a specific owner. Also, unlike a child or a spouse, a pet can be replaced easily with a similar one, even though no two animals are identical. And who's to say that my dog means more to me than someone else's parakeet means to him? I think this an area that the courts should stay out of.

[+ Oliver]

... the Scheeles' dog, Shadow ...

 

Oh my! But I do agree with Charlie - we don't need a new reason to go to court.

[+ deej]

I agree with Charlie and Oliver.

 

I'll also add:

 

let their mixed-breed dog wander

 

If you don't want your dog to be shot, keep it on a damn leash. If you let it wander, accept responsibility for your own actions!

[NYTomcat]

There has to be a way to allow the court to value the wrongful loss of companion animals greater than the loss of livestock. While I agree the pet is still property, the value to the individual, while immeasurable I agree as I pet my own little baby, has to be able to compensate greater than the $ needed to get a new puppy. While I don't advocate giving people more reasons to sue, When something aggregious is done (say like your neighbor rather than scaring the dog shoots it in the heart and kills it) There needs to be a greater punative effect so that the same sort of behavior is not repeated.

 

However, I do applaude that this raised criminal misdemeanor charges which will hopefully deter future pet killers. Still if the wronged pet owned doesn't feel they got justice from the court (which is what it is there for) then people will start to take vengence a much worse result.

[+ purplekow]

Well if my dog gets off his lead, I would not expect my neighbor to shoot it. Why did he aim at the dog at all, a shot fired would probably scare the dog. The mere presence of a dog would not lead most people to firing any kind of gun at it. Now if the dog were viciously attacking a person or another dog, there might be some rationale for shooting it. But there is not an indication here that this dog appeared to present any more danger than a dog shit on the grass. Since these people were visiting, it is unlikely this was an ongoing feud. This man was lucky to get off with the relatively light penalty he suffered.

I think he should have to pay something for the loss of companionship he inflicted and the dog's humans should have to match that amount for allowing their dog to be placed in a situation where this could happen. All that money should be donated to help homeless animals.