Dr. Shawn’s Blog

Are Pets Property or Family Members?

December 22, 2009 on 7:55 am | In General Posts | No Comments

Mike Gallagher was discussing an interesting case on his radio show involving the question of whether or not the family pet is considered property or is considered a family member. The case involves a family in Vermont whose dog was shot and killed by the next-door neighbor. The family wants to sue and recoup losses based upon their emotional attachment to the pet as a family member, but the law recognizes pets as property rather than family members.

As I hope to share with Mike sometime on his show, I think most people do consider their pets as members of their family. I know I do, and so do my clients in my veterinary practice. For many of these clients, their pets are their children as they do not have any children and instead devote all of their love, attention, and affection to their dogs or cats.

Currently, the law treats pets as property. This means that if a pet is killed (intentionally or accidentally,) you can only recoup the value of the pet (property,) which would not include any damages for emotional loss and pain.

While many people want the law to change to reflect the increased human-animal bond and recognize that pets are considered family members, there are always unintended consequences of any law. While I’m not opposed to changing the law, it is important to consider all implications before the law is changed. Here are just a few things that come to mind.

1. Increased malpractice costs. Currently malpractice insurance is very inexpensive for veterinarians when compared to medical doctors. A major reason for this is that pets are considered property, and other than the actual expenses involved with the medical care of the pet, owners cannot receive large payouts based upon the emotional attachment to the pet. If this changes, malpractice costs would increase, and this increased cost will be passed along to you at the time of your visit with the veterinarian.

2. Determining the value of the pet. How would a jury determine a fair value to place on the emotional attachment the family has to the pet? If I were to die, the jury would consider my income at the time of my death as well as any potential future earnings. This value could be awarded to my survivors as it would replace the income I would have made if I were still alive. Obviously most pets do not earn income for the family, so how would a jury arrive at a fair value? Here are 2 possible suggestions: one is to offer a numerical factor of the replacement value of the pet. For example, if it costs $500 to purchase another pet, a jury could offer a value (such as 2x, 5x, 10 x, etc. the replacement value) to cover emotional loss. Another suggestion would be to simply set a dollar value ($500, $1000, etc.) for any emotional loss regardless of the replacement cost of the pet. Having a set value for emotional loss written into law would prevent excessive jury awards but yet still allow a pet owner to receive financial compensation based upon emotional loss.

3. Watch out for “Animal Protective Services.” If pets are recognized as family members (“children”) by the law, what obligations would the human family members have towards the pets? Currently parents cannot abuse their children and must provide a certain level of care or they risk temporarily or permanently losing their children to the state based upon investigation by child protective services. This also involves legal responsibilities of proper medical care for the children. There are two recent cases of parents who declined conventional medical care for their children suffering from serious diseases and instead announced their intentions to treat their children with alternative therapies. Child protective services stepped in and a court ruled that the parents must submit their children for conventional chemotherapy even if they were opposed to it (this opens up many other questions that can be addressed in a future blog.) If pets are to be legally considered as “children,” the state may have the right to force you to have certain medical procedures done to your pet you might not choose. For example, the veterinarian tells you that your pet is suffering from painful dental disease and you refuse to spend money to have the pet’s teeth cleaned, could the veterinarian legally turn you into animal protective services and have you forced to have the procedure done at your expense?

Likewise, if your pet is discovered to have cancer and you choose alternative therapies rather than conventional chemotherapy, could your veterinarian turn you in and have the state intervene and force you to pay for and perform certain medical therapies done to your pet you would not choose?

While I’m all in favor of considering pets as family members, it is important to consider some of the potential consequences of this action and make sure all these consequences are well thought out for the law changes.