Pets Not Property - petsNOTproperty.org

WHAT IS YOUR PET WORTH?1

Our pets are devoted companions and beloved members of our families. When they are sick, we spend whatever money we can afford on vet bills and medication to nurse them back to health. But if someone negligently or intentionally kills your pet, the law in Texas does not allow the pet owner to recover damages for the sentimental value of the animal. The dog who has greeted you every day when you come home from work, who protected your property from intruders, who cheered you up when you are down, and who you loved like a person is treated as nothing more than a broken microwave oven.

The recent poisoning deaths of family pets due to tainted pet food has been a reminder that a dead pet is different than mere broken personal property, and that losing a beloved pet is vastly different than losing a trinket. However, ever since 1891, when the Texas Supreme Court ruled on the case of Heiligmann v. Rose,2 Texas courts have not allowed pet owners to recover special damages to compensate for the sentimental value of the lost pet. An animal is “personal property” under Texas law, and as such, the owner can recover for their wrongful destruction. The question is what can be recovered? A person who buys a dog from the city pound for $30, cares for it for many years, over which time it became a beloved member of her household and a trusted companion, should be able to recover more than $30 (or whatever the current market value may be) if someone else causes its death.

The recent case of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster3 highlights why the current law is problematic and leads to unfair results. Petco was held responsible for the death of Ms. Schuster’s dog “Licorice” and the court ruled that Ms. Schuster was entitled to recover for the sentimental value of Licorice, as well as for emotional distress due to Licorice’s untimely death. The Court of Appeals in Austin reversed the damage award, saying the Heiligmann case, despite being over 100 years old, is still the law in Texas and only authorizes very limited damages for the death of an animal.

A pet owner should be able to recover reasonable damages to compensate for the sentimental value of the wrongly killed pet. “Market value” is simply an inadequate means of measuring the value of a dog, cat, or other family pet.4 The nature of pets and their relationship to our families has certainly changed since 1891 and the time of Heiligmann. Our law should reflect that family pets, while personal property, are a unique type of property which nearly always has a value to its owner above and beyond the market value based on sentimental considerations. We advocate the Texas Legislature passing a law to expressly allow reasonable sentimental damages for the death of a pet.

QUESTION: If sentimental damages are recoverable, wouldn’t everybody claiming someone else damaged their property claim it had a high sentimental value?

ANSWER:      We only advocate a change in the law for pets. It is a rare family pet that does not have a legitimate sentimental value. It would certainly be bad policy to allow or encourage every fender bender lawsuit to claim thousands of dollars in sentimental damages because “that was my favorite, most beloved bumper.”

QUESTION: How much money in “sentimental damages” are we talking about?

ANSWER: How much money would I have to pay you for you to voluntarily lose your pet? The answer would certainly vary on a case by case basis. A pet owner who has had a dog for two days would not have the same claim to sentimental damages as someone who owned a dog for ten years. If the owner has a reputation of abusing the animal that would certainly reduce or negate any claim to sentimental damages. There can’t be one value for everyone.

QUESTION:   Would there be a monetary cap against sentimental damages?

ANSWER:      As long as the cap on sentimental damages is not unreasonably low, we would not oppose one. A limited recovery is better than no recovery.

QUESTION:   Won’t lawyers be the ones who benefit from your proposal?

ANSWER:      To the extent lawyers representing pet owners would get a contingent fee out of the damage recovery, they would benefit. But pet owners would be the true beneficiaries as they would be able to be compensated for the loss of their pets. There is no indication that dead pet lawsuits would be an extremely lucrative field of law practice if the law were changed in our favor. In fact, people would be much more careful with and around other people’s pets if they knew the owner could recover for sentimental damages. With more care comes less accidents. Less dead pets would mean less lawsuits. Everyone would benefit.

Coming soon www.petsnotproperty.org

1. By Bruce R. Moldovan, Esq. of Haynes, Boyd & Associates, P.C. Bmoldovan@haynesandboyd.com

2. Heiligmann v. Rose, 81 Tex. 222, 16 S.W. 931 (Tex. 1891).

3. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster, 144 S.W.3d 554 (Tex.App.—Austin 2004, no pet.).

4. The pet owner should have the burden of proving why the animal had sentimental value, which should arise from factors other than the mere existence of the animal; as such, it would be unlikely that a goldfish would have any meaningful sentimental value, whereas a dog or cat certainly would.