Judge: Bereaved dog owners can't sue
AUSTIN — Man's best friend is priceless. But a dog gone is worth nothing in Texas.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled on Friday that bereaved dog owners cannot sue for emotional damages when someone else is to blame for the death of a pet.
A Fort Worth family had challenged the law because an animal shelter mistakenly euthanized their Labrador retriever in 2009.
Justice Don Willet wrote the 25-page opinion with flourish rarely seen from the state's highest civil court. He opened with a dog-admiring passage from the English poet Lord Byron and opined the heartache wrought by “Old Yeller.”
Yet Willet concluded that “the human-animal bond, while undeniable” does not elevate to collecting money for grief.
“Measuring the worth of a beloved pet is unquestionably an emotional determination — what the animal means to you and your family — but measuring a pet's value is a legal determination,” Willet wrote. “We are focused on the latter, and as a matter of law an owner's affection for a dog (or ferret, or parakeet, or tarantula) is not compensable.”
Texas does allow owners to collect damages for wrongfully killed pets that had economic value, such as a prize-winning show dog or a stunt canine.
Jeremy and Kathryn Medlen said equally irreplaceable was their family dog, Avery, although the pet was essentially worthless in terms of market value. Avery wound up in an animal shelter after running away from home, and was mistakenly put down, even though a worker at the pound had placed a tag on the dog instructing that she not be euthanized.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Daughter says of Utah doctor: He’s a ‘monster’
- White House evacuated for fence jumper
- Benghazi death prompts $2M suit
- License plate scanner networks gotcha
- U.S., Canadian jets intercept 8 Russian aircraft
- Chief justice worried about partisanship
- House panel OKs move to split Amtrak, focus on profitable Northeast Corridor
- Italian village to honor World War II U.S. bomber pilots
- Even record-setting retardant drops barely slow Calif. blaze
- Ten Commandments lawsuit tossed
- White House targets sexual assaults on college campuses