“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mohandas Gandhi
Our law firm is on the cutting edge of developing animal and pet law in Utah including contracts and licensing, ownership disputes, and veterinary malpractice.
This Spring Utah became the 44th State in the USA to have an animal cruelty felony law passed. The Utah State legislation passed a compromise bill SB 297 that makes deliberate torture of a cat or a dog a third-degree felony on the first offense. This bill is great news for the majority of companion animals in Utah.
According to the Humane Society of Utah data, 61% of all Americans keep either a companion dog, or a cat or both. Also, 74% of people living in Utah believe that heightened protection for companion dogs and cats is needed. Unfortunately, other animals, many of which are also human companions, are exempt from this law. However, as the humane movement gains strength, more and more people gain understanding that cruelty knows no boundaries and we are all better off if all animals are protected from torture and senseless acts of cruelty.
Animal Law Issues and Companion Animals
Our clients receive legal help to address the following issues:
• disputes with condo associations and landlords
• service dogs for people with disabilities
• ownership/guardianship of animals
• pet trusts
• injuries to pets and veterinary malpractice
Animal Law Cases that I Handle
The animal law cases that I handle can be divided into certain categories. One of the categories is licensing of kennel facilities with various cities throughout Utah. Every city in Utah has some regulations on how to license dogs and other animal rescue facilities. Most cities have a limit on how many dogs a person can own which is usually limited to two. If a person wants to have more than two dogs, then such person needs to obtain a kennel license. Sometimes the city requires a certificate from the Health Department like in Clearfield, Utah. Before you decide to have several dogs in your household, please consult with the city ordinance. The consequences of having more dogs than allowed are grave. Your dogs can be impounded and you can be fined by the city.
The second type of cases are those involving various ownership disputes. Some animals are used to produce a pure breed offspring and to show them in animal shows. Sometimes these animals are owned by more than one owner. When that happens, disputes may arise. I have handled several cases where the absence of a written contract on how to handle a dog in respect to showing it at dog shows and breeding caused heated disputes. Owners and breeders clash in serious legal battles and emotions usually fly high. If you do have a joint animal ownership, it might be wise to draft an appropriate contract so if the dispute arises you have your rights protected and will not have to leave the guess work to the courts.
Another type of cases is neighborhood disputes over noise and nuisance, sometimes only perceived nuisance, created by animal rescue organizations and kennels. I have handled several cases where the neighbors were in a bitter neighborhood dispute over whether the dog rescue facilities are causing nuisance to the neighbors.
Finally, there are cases where animal owners believe that their animals being negligently or intentionally injured or killed. Those are also highly emotional cases that include pet shop negligence and veterinary malpractice. I carefully screen those cases. Before I file any veterinary malpractice action, I submit those cases to an expert veterinarian for review.
Pet Trusts
Animals, including household pets, are considered to be property of their owners. However, several court decisions in the USA have held that the pets occupy a place between property and a person. Their legal status is somewhat higher than the status of mere property. This idea found its reflection in the Utah law which now allows to put money into a pet trust. In order to set a pet trust, you will need to select a trustee to administer the trust. It can be an attorney, a family member, a friend or a bank. You also need to select a caretaker. This is the person who will provide care for your pet. You need to execute a special request to the trustee. When determining how much to put in a trust, please make sure you understand that as the pet ages, it might need more care. Also, if you have more than one pet, multiple pet needs have to be covered as well. You would need to request a desired standard of living for your pet so that the caretaker can insure that the standard of living is provided for your pet. It’s advisable to have a trustee checking on the caretaker; to prepare complete identification of your pet; to select the remainder of beneficiary if the pet dies for the money still left in the trust. Also, it is important to provide instructions on handling your pet's death.
Legal Status of Companion Animals
Companion animals are considered to be property (like a car) in every state in America. Some states have passed laws that allow non-economic damages (payment for the loss of love and company of a pet) to be paid to animal guardians for the loss of their pets. For example, Tennessee allows pet guardians to recover non-economic damages for the loss of a pet, whether such loss was caused by an accident or on purpose. This law allows payment for the "reasonably expected society, companionship, love and affection of the pet." This law limits damages to only $4,000.00 for the death of a pet. Also, the definition of a pet in Tennessee does not include any other companion animals but cats and dogs. Other states have also begun to adopt these kinds of laws.
In a lawsuit out of New York in 1980 (click here to read the actual case) a woman named Ms. Broussea delivered a healthy 8 year old dog to board at a Dr. Rosenthal’s kennel. When she returned to the kennel, the dog was dead. The judge found that Ms. Broussea was entitled to recover money damages. The judge struggled with how to make a math formula to figure the fair measure of Ms. Broussea’s loss. The judge said "resisting the temptation to romanticize the virtues of a ‘human’s best friend’, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the companionship and protection that Ms. Broussea lost with the death of her canine companion of eight years. The difficulty of . . . measuring this loss does not absolve [Mr. Rosenthal] of his obligation to compensate [Ms. Broussea] for that loss, at least to the meager extent that money can make her whole. The dog’s age is not a depreciation factor in the court’s calculations, for manifestly, good dog’s value increases rather than falls with age and training. The court therefore awarded judgment to [Ms. Broussea] in the sum of $550 plus costs and disbursements". However, this case shows that even when judges realize that pets are more than just property, they still don’t award enough to compensate pet guardians for the losses.
In another New York case, the human companion brought a 15 year old poodle to a vet for treatment. (Click here to read the actual case). However, the vet recommended euthanasia. The dog was put to death. The human companion wanted the dog’s body to be turned over to a funeral organization. However, when the casket was delivered, the casket contained, instead of the dog’s body, the body of a cat! A New York judge said that "a pet is not just a thing but occupies a special place somewhere in between a person and a piece of personal property." The judge decided that the human companion was due money beyond the cost of the dog and found that the dog’s human companion suffered shock and mental anguish due to the wrongful destruction and loss of the dog’s body. That judge recognized that a distressed pet guardian can and should recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In 1985 a case from Idaho involved the shooting and killing of a donkey owned by a man named Richard Gill. (Click here to read the actual case). The Gills sued not only for property damage, but for mental anguish. The Appellate Court held that mental anguish is a proper basis for recovery. Overall, most judges cannot yet part with the view that companion animals, although not just mere property like a piece of furniture, are still not as valuable as humans. Judges seem to still think that the anguish suffered by humans over the loss of animals is more of a nominal value rather than an actual value.
I know that many of my clients feel quite strongly about these issues. I believe that the judicial attitude comes from our society’s attitude toward the value of animal life. It also comes from the fact that judges are bound by the many state laws that still say that animals are only "property." I believe that it is also important to continue with the efforts to lobby legislatures of states to change the laws and raise the value of the animal life, as well as to increase civil and criminal penalties for negligence, reckless and intentional infliction of mental or physical injuries on animals. It is also important to continue to bring such cases to judges. Eventually, public opinion will evolve.
Pit Bulls
In the case of State v. Leslie Poppa, Utah Case No. 051301144, I have been retained to represent a client who was charged with a violation of the City of West Jordan statute prohibiting possession of vicious animals. The dog owner had a young male pit bull terrier who bit a child while the child was visiting the owner's daughter in the house where the dog lived. Unfortunately, the dog bit the visiting child and disfigured her face. My client was charged with a strict liability crime, Class B Misdemeanor under the West Jordan City statute and his dog was placed in isolation at the City shelter. To assess the dog's character, we retained two independent experts. One is a veterinarian and the other is a dog behaviorist. They both gave assessments from their own professional standpoints. Unfortunately, neither one of them could guarantee that the pit bull was not going to bite again. However, since one of the reports noted a friendly side of this pit bull, the Judge released the dog back to my client with understanding that this was the dog's last chance, as well as imposed a fine. This was a really sweet victory. Needless to say, the owner was greatly relieved. Unfortunately, pit bulls historically have been bred for the purposes of fighting with other animals. However, the dog specialist and veterinarian were of the opinion that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous dogs. Improper handling makes them dangerous. This approach is so much more humane rather than a broad prohibition against pit bulls exercised by some cities in the United States, like the recent prohibition that occurred in Denver, Colorado.
|
