suing for emotional distress from a pet's death?

[Chibibar]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091217/ap_on_re_us/us_dog_shooting;_ylt=AikgcDhLXwwS8k0xUM_iZ1B0fNdF

ok.... just to let y'all know. I LOVE my dog. I do spoil her and play with her, but I think this could set a bad precedent in the future.

I do have medical insurance for my pet (Banefield) which I do use for checkup and shots and cost me 35$ a month. I am pretty sure it will cost a whole lot more if this exception to the law is passed.

but with the case in hand, the owner should not have the right to even sue. The dog enter ANOTHER person's yard. In Texas, that is fair game.

 

[Shakey]

How god damn hard would it be to pick up a phone and call animal control? Fuck that guy, I hope he loses. If the animal was a danger, that's different. I know you can never know an animals intent, but there are other ways of dealing with it than shooting it. A couple hundred dollar fine is not gonna make people think twice about shooting a pet.

Pet owners should get fined every time they let their animal roam free too. The owners are partly responsible, but they don't deserve a dead pet.

 

[SeraRelm]

He's on a year probation, 100 hours of community service and a $4,000.00 fine. How is that "a couple hundred dollars fine"?

He's paid his dues on the matter, but I can assure you, they won't let their animals run around causing havoc in his yard again.

Also, it was an air rifle. The death itself seems to have been a one in a thousand accident. No, that doesn't make it right, but don't spin it like he had a .38 sitting next to his rocking chair, waiting for anything to step on to his yard.

 

[Shakey]

Cause I said so.:humph:

I know it would get abused, and it's not a good idea to allow it. It still bugs the hell out of me though.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Heck, it wasn't even a fine, it was 4000 bucks to the dog's family. I don't see them winning. Especially, as said in the OP, this is Texas.

:gun-toting-redneck:

Awww, thats not one of our emoticons?

 

[Denbrought]

I'm a cat lover and all, but if my cat snuck up on someone else's property and they shot it... Why the heck should I be able to sue? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Shakey]

What bugs me more is the attitude of "it's just an animal". I know not everyone feels the same way, but it's not your pet. There are non-lethal ways of dealing with the situation and they don't cost you a dime. If he didn't want to kill the dog he shouldn't have fired a weapon at it. Air rifles can shoot at nearly the same speed as .22's now, it wasn't a spring loaded BB gun.

I've just seen too many dogs around my area abandoned in the woods to starve to death or shot because they weren't wanted. My sister found a dog shot in the side with a shotgun that was nearly dead. They just left him to suffer. She kept him and he ended up being a great dog. So, I guess that's why it bugs me a little more than it should.

Anyway, moral of the story? If you don't want a dead pet don't let it wander.

 

[Covar]

If the owner of a pet can't keep them under control they should be willing to accept the responsibility if something happens to it. Their dog could have just as easily wondered into the street and been hit by a car. As far as I'm concerned it's their negligence that got the dog killed.

 

[Cuyval Dar]

it's just an animal

 

[Iaculus]

it's just an animal

Sez the squid.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

it's just an animal

And it's not even a kitteh

 

[makare]

They could win. I think they have a good argument for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. If I were there attorney I would argue for it.

 

[SpecialKO]

Heck, it wasn't even a fine, it was 4000 bucks to the dog's family. I don't see them winning. Especially, as said in the OP, this is Texas.

:gun-toting-redneck:

Awww, thats not one of our emoticons?

On-topic: I'm really torn because I can understand the agony that the owners are going through. Pets die by accident, but in this case, the "accident" was "the gun I shot him with wouldn't normally have killed him".

That said, the guy clearly tried to make somewhat amends, took his punishment, and besides, how do you value the emotional value of a pet?

 

[Bowielee]

If the owner of a pet can't keep them under control they should be willing to accept the responsibility if something happens to it. Their dog could have just as easily wondered into the street and been hit by a car. As far as I'm concerned it's their negligence that got the dog killed.

I can't agree with this enough. I treat my dog like he's a child, but I wouldn't hold someone else responsible if I let my dog wander off unattended and it was killed.

 

[makare]

There is a difference between someone hitting the dog with a car and shooting it with a gun. The first is an accident (well presumably) and the other is an intentional act. When someone intentionally acts in a way that they should know would cause another person extreme emotional distress, that is where the charge of intentional infliction of emotional distress comes into play. Regardless of whether someone is, as is my opinion, so heartless and callous to think that a dog is "just an animal" does not change the fact that that he SHOULD know that to other people dogs are more than that, that the killing of the animal could most likely cause great emotional distress.

 

[Bonhomme Richard]

I actually have this problem on my land now. I usually just walk out on to the porch and clap my hands. Sometimes I have to walk out and shoo them away or throw a rock near them (I never hit them). But, if I didn't know anything about the dog or it showed any kind of ill intent, I would not hesitate to get it with the paintball gun since I don't have an air rifle.

I don't know about in other states, but here I'm out in the sticks and animal control would laugh me off the phone.

I've got a toddler who will be playing in the yard soon. As we're on a good bit of land, a dog could come from any number of directions and I'd rather not have them thinking it's acceptable to be anywhere near the area we use for a yard.

 

[makare]

There is a difference between someone hitting the dog with a car and shooting it with a gun. The first is an accident (well presumably) and the other is an intentional act. When someone intentionally acts in a way that they should know would cause another person extreme emotional distress, that is where the charge of intentional infliction of emotional distress comes into play. Regardless of whether someone is, as is my opinion, so heartless and callous to think that a dog is "just an animal" does not change the fact that that he SHOULD know that to other people dogs are more than that, that the killing of the animal could most likely cause great emotional distress.

But in this case he didn't mean to cause the animal (and its owners) any harm. While a poor choice of deterrent for sure, the fact that it was a fatal shot was a fluke accident.[/QUOTE]

The intentional act was the shooting not the death of the dog and he did intentional shoot the dog.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

Animals that are killed by a mere pellet don't deserve to exist.

 

[Philosopher B.]

"That's not what the relationship between humans and dogs is anymore. They're a member of the family and when they're lost you can't just go out to the local store and buy a new one. That doesn't fix it."

So they're saying they'd let their child run into a strange old man's yard?

 

[@Li3n]

"That's not what the relationship between humans and dogs is anymore. They're a member of the family and when they're lost you can't just go out to the local store and buy a new one. That doesn't fix it."

So they're saying they'd let their child run into a strange old man's yard?

Yeah, i mean lock up your kid in the closet if you really don't want him to run in your neighbours yard.


Also, i never got how the whole "shoot anyone within my property" thing still existed past the wild west era... seems way to easy of an excuse for murdering people. Any situation where a trespasser might need to be shot would easily fall under self-defence imo.

 

[Philosopher B.]

My point obviously isn't that you should lock your dog/child up. My point is if 'Shadow' was so bloody important to them, they could have kept a better eye on, or even gotten a damned leash. Hell, they should have been extra careful since they were visiting relatives. There they are in another neighborhood, and their dog is probably off shitting on some random person's lawn (something I hate when it happens to me).

But yeah. Better bleed dry that 76-year-old dude who probably didn't mean to kill the dog in the first place and probably feels bad about it now and pile another couple hundred hours of community service on his ass.

- Philosopher B., who doesn't condone killing dogs but figures the guy has already paid up.

---------- Post added at 08:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------

There are non-lethal ways of dealing with the situation and they don't cost you a dime. If he didn't want to kill the dog he shouldn't have fired a weapon at it.

I agree. He should have tried loud noises. I find stray dogs (even big ugly ones) scatter pretty quickly the minute you give tongue. Which is why he should have paid in some form (which it appears he already has).

 

[@Li3n]

But yeah. Better bleed dry that 76-year-old dude who probably didn't mean to kill the dog in the first place and probably feels bad about it now and pile another couple hundred hours of community service on his ass.

Well that i agree with... sue happy americans and all that.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Just another step on the Great Wussification of America.

 

[Dubyamn]

But in this case he didn't mean to cause the animal (and its owners) any harm. While a poor choice of deterrent for sure, the fact that it was a fatal shot was a fluke accident.

Actually he did mean to cause the dog harm since he shot it with a air rifle. Not an air soft gun a full on air rifle that easily has enough force to penetrate skin and possibly bone.

Even if he had shot the dog in the hind leg like he said he ran a good chance of maiming the dog and at the very least requiring surgery to remove the lead pellet. He obviously meant to cause the dog harm, maybe not to kill it I'll accept that but saying that he didn't mean to hurt the dog is an outright lie.

 

[Shakey]

Just another step on the Great Wussification of America.

Not sure what being it has to do with Wussifying anything. I hunt. I shot 2 deer this year, and a few grouse. I also fish. My parents have scottish highlander cows and we usually butcher 1 a year. If not feeling the need to shoot an animal for no reason other than it is there is being a wussy, I'll gladly be called a wussy.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Just another step on the Great Wussification of America.

Not sure what being it has to do with Wussifying anything. I hunt. I shot 2 deer this year, and a few grouse. I also fish. My parents have scottish highlander cows and we usually butcher 1 a year. If not feeling the need to shoot an animal for no reason other than it is there is being a wussy, I'll gladly be called a wussy.[/QUOTE]

No but to sue over the death of an animal is being a wus. And that there is a good chance of precedent being set that you can sue for large sums of money over the death of a stray dog.

 

[Chibibar]

you can intentionally run a dog over with a car and make it look like an accident. (I wouldn't do it I actually stop) so either method is bad (running over or shooting)

 

[North_Ranger]

You know, I'm really fighting back the urge to yell "IT'S A GODDAMD DOG!" here. I like animals, I know people who love their pets, but at the end of the day, it's still an animal. You have it around for a purpose, whether that's company, training, eating it or wearing it. And if this passes, where do you draw the line? Cats? Gerbils? Goldfish? Dustbunnies?

I repeat what was said before: the guy sounded like he was sorry, and paid up for it. These assholes are just bleedin' him dry for no good reason.

 

[Chibibar]

You know, I'm really fighting back the urge to yell "IT'S A GODDAMD DOG!" here. I like animals, I know people who love their pets, but at the end of the day, it's still an animal. You have it around for a purpose, whether that's company, training, eating it or wearing it. And if this passes, where do you draw the line? Cats? Gerbils? Goldfish? Dustbunnies?

I repeat what was said before: the guy sounded like he was sorry, and paid up for it. These assholes are just bleedin' him dry for no good reason.

Plus, the lawsuit could open a whole new can of worms.

If you CAN sue another person for emotional distress does this mean dogs are consider people?

This mean you CAN'T put them in kennels (would you put your kids in one?) I mean it can cause distress to the DOG. (I know I am going out on a limb but it is still a valid point)

I do treat my dog very well but she is lock up in the yard and left alone (she can't escape it) so would that be cruelty?

 

[Shakey]

And that there is a good chance of precedent being set that you can sue for large sums of money over the death of a stray dog.

Which is why I don't think it's really a good idea, even though I would like to see it happen.

If you CAN sue another person for emotional distress does this mean dogs are consider people?

No, it's just acknowledging that people form an emotional bond with their pets that go above that of normal personal property. And that because of this the value to the owner is more than the cost of replacing it and paying for it's disposal.

 

[North_Ranger]

And that there is a good chance of precedent being set that you can sue for large sums of money over the death of a stray dog.

Which is why I don't think it's really a good idea, even though I would like to see it happen.

If you CAN sue another person for emotional distress does this mean dogs are consider people?

No, it's just acknowledging that people form an emotional bond with their pets that go above that of normal personal property. And that because of this the value to the owner is more than the cost of replacing it and paying for it's disposal.[/QUOTE]

But in Vermont you can't sue for emotional distress for the loss of a grandchild, for instance. Forgive me, but I would think it pretty fucked up if one would value a dog over a grandchild. Seriously.

 

[SeraRelm]

There's also no talk of the animal in question doing this repeatedly or not. I kind of get the feeling this guy didn't just up and do it, but was built up to it instead.

Not saying it's so, but it seems more likely to me.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I may have a solution to the problem from the OP. Do not treat the animal as property, so give him back the $4k. The force a settlement for emotional distress for the value of the dog. $1k.

 

[Shakey]

But in Vermont you can't sue for emotional distress for the loss of a grandchild, for instance. Forgive me, but I would think it pretty fucked up if one would value a dog over a grandchild. Seriously.

I don't know the details of why it's like that, but my first guess would it would be so the parents and grandparents can't both sue the same person. If it's not the case then it's a shitty law, but it's a shitty law that doesn't have anything to do with this.

There's also no talk of the animal in question doing this repeatedly or not. I kind of get the feeling this guy didn't just up and do it, but was built up to it instead.

They live in the city. They can call the police and the animal control.

 

[David]

I think it matters what exactly, if anything, this guy was trying to protect by shooting the dog. Did he have children or other animals to protect?

I have livestock on my property, and if I come out to find a strange dog chasing around my chickens, damn right I'm going to shoot it. I have a right to protect my own animals, and if it's a choice between my animals and a strange animal that wandered into my property, I'm sorry but that's an easy choice. I'm not going to stand back and watch all my chickens die violent deaths while waiting for animal control to show up. Nor am I going to walk up and attempt to manually chase away an animal that for all I know has rabies.