Hurt cats/liability

Factual Questions
1

{Inspired by an unfortunate pit thread about a hurt cat}

I have a question more legal than ethical. I know it is an emotional subject but…

Let’s say that through my negligence (not intentional) I harm someone elses cat (or dog or whatever).

The owner of the cat, loving their cat fiercely, spends huge amounts of money to try to get their cat back to health. They then expect me to pay the bill. For sake of argument, say the amount they spent was very high $5K…$20K…$30K…whatever amount that you would think would be excessive.

Is the person liable ‘legally’ to pay? Do the courts put a ‘reasonable’ cost or just accept whatever the pet owner did.

The same question could be asked about ethically…but that is a debate.

2

This is an interesting question to me, both as a lawyer and as someone who recently lost a pet under circumstances that were someone’s else’s fault.

Generally, the answer is no. Unfortunately, under the law, pets are simply property with a value set by the market. Except in the rare case of a valuable show dog which stands to make thousands in stud fees, the value of a dog or cat is a few hundred dollars, if that. (Even if you have a purebred which sold for more as a puppy or kitten, his resale value as an adult dog is pretty much nil.)

Here’s how property damage claims work. The normal measure of damages is the cost of repair. In this case, that would mean the vet bills. But if the cost of repair exceeds the market value of the damaged object, the measure of damages is the market value. (You may have come across this concept in a vehicle context. If a car is badly damaged, it may be deemed to be “totalled”, in which case the responsible party (or insurer) pays used car market value.)

Normally, this makes a lot of sense. In a pet situation, though, it’s not satisfying.
(In the real world, I can see a judge bending the law a bit and awarding vet bills up to a point, even though the dog could be replaced for free from the local pound. Not thousands, though.

3

**Random ** nailed the principles. I’ve totaled a couple dogs during my tenure as an auto claim rep (dogs killed in car wrecks). I never had a pet case go to court for more money. The reason is I’m a pretty cool guy to talk to and I would refer to the dead/injured animal with all the sensitivity I would an injured person. Pet people get weird when you start calling their pet an “it” or start talking about replacement costs.

One principle that is looked at is “reasonable.” Is an owner owed $30k for reconstructive surgury, thereapy and emergency treatment for a 15 year old humane society survivor? Nope. How about emergency evaluative & subsequent euthanasia & replacement cost? Probably.

4

Note to self: List of people with sound legal knowledge: Bricker, Random.

5

Why, thanks, askeptic. That’s mighty elevated company you’re putting me in.

6

Ethically, a person who unintentionally harms an animal shouldn’t be held liable, in my opinion. Anyone who lets their dog, cat, or other pet run around free without protection of a human and leash should not blame other people for their harmed pet. They have themselves to blame. Even if the dog/cat gets out accidentally, it’s still not the other person’s fault.

7

Say a person unintentionally smashes into your car? Should they be held liable in that case? Remember, liability for damage to property,be it a dog or a car, is based usually on negligence. In order to prevail, the injured party (dog owner) must show that the driver had a duty, that he breached that duty, as a result of the breached duty the plaintiff suffered damages and that the drivers actions were both the proximate and legal and legal cause of those damages. The defendant may assert a defense based on contributory negligence to negate or mitigate his liability. But if you are lawfully walking your dog on a leash on a sidewalk and a driver, while looking for a cd unintentionally swerves onto the sidewalk and damages your property (the poor pooch) should they not be liable. Take it a step farther, say your dog is running around loose but still on the sidewalk driver swerves onto sidewalk kills pooch, you think the fact that the dog was unleashed should absolve the reckless driver?

8

I can see where the owner is negligent if the pet is running around loose, but an animal doesn’t have to be loose for an accident to happen. Say I’m driving around and lose control of my car, smashing into your barn and causing a portion of it to fall onto your prized cow. The owner of the cow would be in no way negligent, but the accident would have been completely unintentional on my part.

9

This is somewhat related to your question. I’m currently enrolled in a program to become a Registered Veterinary Technician. Basically the same as an RNA except for animals. Well the subject of dog parks came up and I asked if I was liable for the medical bills of another dog if my dog started fighting with it. And the instructor said that only if my dog was off leash and the dog that was attacked was on leash. Since the dog on leash was ‘under control’ and mine wasn’t. If both were off leash then I wouldn’t be liable.
Another interesting thing I learned was that cats aren’t considered ‘property’ as dogs are. Which is the reason they’re not required to be licensed or show proof of rabies vaccine. The reason we were given is that you can’t contain your cat in your back yard like you can a dog. Of course, I’m not positive on the legal aspects of any of this but it sort of makes sense.

10

Not necesarily true.

Not true. If cats are not property and they are not people then what exactly are they?

Another reason you get med advice from a MD (or DVM) and legal advice from a lawyer.

11

My city, among others, does indeed require a cat to be restrained, licensed, and vaccinated. Cats are treated exactly the same way as dogs under our animal ordinances.

12

This is nonsense.

13

I did say unintentionally. I mean, a person swerving into a dog is pretty intentional, isn’t it? A person driving a car who unintentionally smashes into another person is a whole 'nother thing. And if the crash was an accident due to other factors, that’s different as well. My example was a dog or cat unleashed and a person unintentionally harming them as a result of that dog or cat running around unleashed.

14

Thanks Random and others.

That is what I thought the answer was but had major doubts.

The property makes sense. If I break someone’s chair and I could replace it for $200 but the owner cries that the chair was of great value to her for whatever reasons and so wants more… I can see the courts saying “No, you have your replacement so you no longer have a complaint”. That seems fair.

While I would sympathise with the owner of the cat I accidently hit I would be hesitant to shell out thousands of dollars for vet bills. I would feel guilty as hell and feel like a real heel there has to be some reasonable upper cost.

Replacement value of the pet might be a bit low and a reasonable Vet bill might be better. A cat is not like property in that it can be ‘saved’ by Vet action. The problem is what is ‘reasonable’. I can see the courts avoiding this by treating pets as property.

Icky stuff, this.