If all those things happened, the pet owners are the ones who would end up paying the increased cost, meaning poor people would find it harder to own and care for their pets. That’s seems like a reasonable trade-off, particularly when the risk is under the owner’s control. There is also a lot of passive language in this article to avoid the owner taking responsibility - the dog “got out” of the owner’s control - whereas if it happened to my pet, I would feel that I hadn’t properly secured my pet
I'm mainly pushing back at the idea the author couldn't have thought about what she was writing.
Interestingly, Tennessee and Florida are among the most progressive in terms of recognizing the non-market value of pets. Though this document has not been updated since 2011, so some information may be out of date. I believe NY and IL may have passed laws since then regarding this subject.
One searing memory that I can't unsee is a video clip taken during the New Orleans evacuations after Katrina. A poodle is jumping up at the closed door of a bus and obviously bewildered that he can't get in and be with his owner.
I have thought many times about that video. If I couldn't smuggle that pet on board, I would hope I wouldn't be able to abandon him/her, and we'd take our chances together.
"I had a very hard time with that when we edited it," Moore admitted. "We put it in, we took it out . . . then we just had to say, 'Look, this is how it is.' . . . One more thing," Moore added.
"Two minutes later in the film, a black man was shot. I had no calls, I never see anyone get out of the theater and leave. It's an image we've learned to accept because we see it on TV.
"I received a lot more sympathy and compassion for that little bunny than that black man. I guess you could say that the bunny didn't have a gun. Anyway, that was my thought process as we were editing it."
But I have trouble thinking that opening the legal system to “sentimental value” lawsuits is going to do anything other than just introduce a lot of lawsuits…
> Every single person who’s called me about wanting to sue because their dog was killed did not care about the money. They wanted to send a message. They want to vindicate their beloved pet. They don’t want this person to get off scot-free. They want some kind of justice.
So it would be a legal cost for everyone and nobody suing really wants the money.
This is totally insane. Dogs are part of families and should be treated thusly under the law.
The current laws on the book in Texas seem like a great way to lead people towards vigilante justice.
You'd likely also lose a lawsuit if the owner sued you for vet bills incurred trying to save the dogs life.
It seems like the author failed to understand that the world is FULL of incompetent people who present dangers to others, in this case resulting in violent death of her puppy.
a) you still can and should file suit for the $50. And ask for a Jury trial. Sure it will cost you $10K+, but it will cost that other "owner" at least that much or more to defend. It will NOT be pleasant for them. They may have to capitulate and settle if they cannot afford a lawyer, if that's the cheaper option. The only reason not to is if they are so poor they don't even have $10K or so rich they won't care. Otherwise, the defendant in a lawsuit is already in a very weak position if they have something to lose. Would their homeowners/umbrella coverage pay anything?
b) oh yes, start with $50 for the animal + emotional trauma of say $100,000 (you) due to gross negligence including presumably violating a leash law. Such a cute dog! Dogs as cute as that can go on to have $1M modeling careers. See causing that incident +whatever other rubbish like that a good lawyer can dredge up is on top of the value of the dog. You will end up settling for a lot less, but you can sue for anything. You may not make a lot of money but you can definitely be seriously punitive to the "owner" and may (eventually) break even or better.
c) if you don't have the backing, do a gofundme to pay the fees
d) pester the fuck out of the DA to press additional criminal charges
e) get a representative and/or press interest. might even eventually change those laws
If you are serious about fixing those asshole "owners" who let this happen, you can take a pretty good crack at it.
I hate it when slimy lawyers use these tactics against the "good guys", but there are times like these that it would be useful.
AFAIU, Texas strictly limits the scope of negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Negligent infliction of emotional distress is a fairly recent judicial invention. Being one of the first (the first, at least in the U.S., per Wikipedia) to recognize a claim in the absence of physical injury to the plaintiff, AFAIU it's much broader in California than many other jurisdictions. (EDIT: And even under California law this may be a difficult claim to make.) This is probably why Texas lawyers simply dismissed the possibility out-of-hand.
If you're paying for it, you can find a lawyer to wreck someone's life. Again, if that's what you want to do.
On the other hand, I have a family member who had this exact same thing happen. Except it was their other dog that did it, and that dog was also a beloved family pet. Rough is what that situation is. And what they did is feel really bad but get over it. They did keep the other dog. They won't be getting another toy breed for a long time either. Very sad all around.
So revenge is a great fantasy. If the author wants to do all that stuff, I'm positive 100% they could do something pretty nasty. But in the real world we often have to just ... get over it. Probably healthier, but me - I'd sue the bejesus out of them, just for spite.
