by Alicia Graef
Industry groups are taking up opposite sites of the fight in
the appeal of a case that resulted in an award of $620,000 to a family whose
dog was shot by a sheriff’s deputy.
In 2010, two deputies arrived at the home of Roger and Sandi
Jenkins in search of the couple’s son. According to the Washington Post,
Roger said, “Let me put the dogs away and you can come in,” which made the
officers suspicious that the son was sneaking out the back, so one went around
the side of the house. There, he met up with the family’s chocolate lab,
Brandi.
The deputy went for his gun and shot Brandi, even though she
stopped barking and never got within three feet of him. The whole thing was
caught on a dashboard camera:
Brandi, survived the incident, but will require lifelong
medical care. To make matters worse here, when the Jenkins took her to the vet,
the deputies went into their home without a warrant or their consent.
The family sued, and the jury found that their
constitutional rights had been violated and returned a $620,000 verdict in
their favor, including $200,000 for emotional distress.
The sheriff’s office appealed the case this summer in the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals, at which time they found themselves with
some unlikely allies. Nine national and local groups, including the American
Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, Cat Fanciers’
Association and the Maryland Veterinary Medical Association, among others, had
recently filed their own brief in support of tossing the award for emotional
distress.
Their argument is that awards for emotional distress will
result in higher costs when it comes to pet-related services, such as veterinary
care. In this particular case they argued that “there is no basis for creating
emotion-based liability in pet litigation, regardless of the nature of the
claim.” This also isn’t the first time some of these groups have come out
against awards for “non-ecomonic” damages in wrongful death cases.
While the law only recognizes companion animals as
“property,” there have been a number of cases that reflect our changing
attitudes towards them. For those of us who view our pets as furry members of the family,
losing one in a wrongful death case is much more complicated than recovering
their “economic” or “market” value. Whether it’s a case of veterinary malpractice,
a lost pet who gets picked up and accidentally euthanized or a pet who is
intentionally injured or killed, money can never make it right. The courts need
to acknowledge their sentimental value and the fact that most people don’t view
them like an inanimate object that can simply be replaced.
Now industry groups are fighting over whether the settlement
should be upheld. The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a brief
supporting the family and the award. The organization doesn’t believe the
outcome will affect costs in the future and argues that these organizations,
who all profit off of our bonds with animals, are hypocritically trying to
limit damages to their value as property.
“When those who harm animals are held accountable for the
full extent of the injuries they cause, it sends a clear message that our
society and our legal system is starting to take the lives of animals
seriously. When pet industry groups like AKC and AVMA oppose non-economic
damages, they are standing in the way of progress for animals,” stated the
organization.
In the case of police officers shooting dogs, which is
happening far too frequently, awards like this might help them think twice
before unnecessarily using lethal force.
