Dog Attacks: The True Value of a Pet/Companion/Friend

Last week our usually quiet neighborhood was the locale of a tragic and violent event. Two dogs wandered out of their yard and, unprovoked, attacked and mortally injured an eighteen pound Eskimo breed dog owned by a woman and her two teenage children. The attack occurred on the property of the family of the attacked animal. Their entire family was distraught and devastated and other neighbors became concerned that their children, several of them toddlers, could conceivably be potential future victims. The incident, presently under investigation by Hillsborough County Animal Services, piqued my interest and curiosity as to the current law on the consequences of dog attacks on domesticated animals.

It goes without contradiction that we have an unusual attitude to our pets; most of us consider our personal dogs and cats different in many ways from animals in general. A brief example of this is the willingness on the part of most Americans, including me, to eat meat of sheep, cow or pig, and wear leather shoes and clothing compared to the revulsion of dining on a dog or cat.

According to a recent survey by a pet products manufacturers association, there are approximately almost 75 million domestic dogs in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control has estimated that almost two percent of the American population, roughly five million people will be bit by dogs every year; 800,000 bites per year -- one out of every 6 -- are serious enough to require medical attention and dog bites send nearly 368,000 victims to hospital emergency departments per year. While there is general acceptance of liability of dog owners for injuries sustained by people resulting from attacks by those dogs, there is not such an acceptance of the liability for damages to domestic pets. This is true whether the injury or death of the animal is caused by an aggressive dog or by the acts of a person.

An important caveat: If you, or a member of your family, suffer injuries or other damages from a dog, or if your companion-pet is injured or killed, consultation with an attorney experienced in this very specialized area of the law is vital. Issues, in addition to basic liability, abound; there are certain to be questions about comparative or contributory negligence, if the attack occurred on the business premises of the attacking animal's owner, if a warning sign was posted and its effect depending on the age of the victim, the amount and measure of damages, and a plethora of others. Moreover, depending on your state of residence, the monetary value of the injured or killed animal may or may not be realistic.

When a pet or other animal is injured or killed by the wrongful act of a person or the unprovoked attack by another animal, the owner is able to sue for and recover to damages. The question arises as to what these damages are.

Recovery in the form of economic damages is the most common form of compensation available to owners of pets or other animals that have been injured or harmed. Economic damages usually consist of the market value (typically the purchase price or replacement cost) of the animal, veterinary care, training costs, breeding costs, loss of breeding income, and other measurable monetary costs resulting from the injury or death of the animal.

Non-economic or special damages, such as emotional distress or loss of companionship, are increasingly being sought in animal wrongful death or injury cases. These costs can often be substantial.

The type of compensation available to animal owners differs significantly from state to state and depends to a great degree on the facts and circumstances of each case. In what are, now, only a handful of states, non-economic damages are permitted in cases involving animals, on the ground that the value of the animal to its owner often goes far beyond its economic or "replacement" value. The emotional bond between humans and their pets or other animals can equal the bond experienced between two people, and that pets are often treated as members of the family. Therefore, damage awards based on the pecuniary cost of the animal are inadequate to compensate the owner of an animal that has been wrongfully killed according to the law. The bases for these policies can be case law decisions, as in Alaska and Kentucky, or Tennessee's statute, allowing limited compensation for "noneconomic damages ... for the loss of the reasonably expected society, companionship, love and affection of the pet."

Those states which deny compensation for non-economic damages, argue that permitting larger recoveries will only encourage a flood of lawsuits without providing additional protections to animals. They express particular concern about the effect of larger compensation awards on veterinary medicine. If non-economic damage awards are permitted, opponents say veterinary malpractice premiums will increase significantly; veterinarians will begin practicing defensive medicine to avoid potential lawsuits. The end result will be much higher costs for animal medical care, which in the end will discourage many people from seeking routine veterinary care for their animals. Sound familiar?

The major difference is whether a family pet is more than just property. As a former dog owner and a pet lover, the answer is clear. It seems to me that our neighbor deserves to be compensated for her and her family's total loss.

The law may not agree, completely, but the trend is to allow total and meaningful compensation for the loss of a family animal-member. As should be.