Let’s hope the courts are wise in their decision and that both sides are satisfied with the outcome.

Adam Ferguson
VetLocator.com

I am confused by this. If your dog is run over by someone, how can you sue for the costs of the dog? Regardless of what you spend on it, the “value” of the dog remains the same. If I spend a million dollars on my dog, I should be able to sue for a million dollars if the dog is killed? You sue to recoup losses…technically, your dead dog is now saving you money.

A BMW has real value. A dog does not, unless it is a show dog that you can sell or otherwise make money from. Even so, if someone wrecks your BMW, you get the market value back…regardless of whether you spent $50,000 a year on wax for it.

My claim certainly is self-interested but that does not make it any less valid. You clearly have no idea what razor thin margins most vet practices run on. An out of pocket settlement of $75k as suggested by the article would probably be enough to sink many single vet practices. The threat alone of such claims will also force many vets to be much more selective about the cases they accept. You also apparently have no idea how _little_ some people are will to spend on their pets. Even a marginal increase in the cost of something like a neuter from say $150 to $200 would be enough to keep some people from doing it–and that is a fairly cheap procedure. The reality is that once the procedure cost hits a level of the original acquisition cost, many owners opt to euthanize. And as long as pets are considered property, that is exclusively the owner’s choice to make (and rightly so.)

No one would argue that the stated $500 limit comes anywhere close to the actual costs associated with raising an animal. And in no way am I suggesting that judgments would ever reach the millions like they do with human malpractice. However, the valuation process becomes an extremely slippery slope and the progression of modern tort law has shown that every successive judgment ratchets up from the previous.

A good read is the American Veterinary Medical Association’s official position on non-economic damages. It contains a similar and more detailed explanation:

http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/non-econo_damages.asp

Come on, the basic fact is that $500 liability limits have no relationship to the reality of what an animal costs to raise, is worth to the owner, or costs to replace. Vaccines, spay/neuter, bedding and simple toys cost more than that in the first year alone.

The reason for this is quite simple: malpractice insurance. While I believe that most people arguing for this type of legislation change are well intentioned, the unintended consequences of such a change will have a dramatic economic impact on pet care. As I said before, I am a pet owner, but my wife is also a veterinarian. Currently, veterinary medical care costs are extraordinarily inexpensive in comparison to the equivalent human costs. But what many people do not realize is that the schooling DVMs go through is just as extensive as human MDs (and most vets would argue more demanding because of multiple species.) Consequently, the many vets finish schooling with nearly the same debt load as MDs. Add to the 8 years of school the possibility of spending another 3-5 years pursuing a specialty through unpaid (or under-paid) internships and residencies and the training costs become staggering. In addition, many of the costs required to run a vet hospital are similar in scope to their human counterparts. Large, expensive equipment like MRIs, linear accelerators, ultrasound units, x-ray equipment, patient monitors and others along with consumables that are all basically the same as in human medicine must be paid for.

So what is it that allows the cost of vet medical care to remain low while human medicine is so astronomical? Well one of the primary reasons is that vets do not have to deal with insane malpractice insurance costs. My wife spends only a few hundred dollars per year on malpractice insurance while an MD may spend well over six figures for insurance. If vets are forced through legislation or legal precedence to start carrying massive malpractice insurance policies, where do you think those costs will be recovered? Through higher fees. Consequently, many pet owners will not be able to afford care for their pets and a large portion of the animal population will go without necessary medical care. It already occurs to a certain extent now, but even more animals will be euthanized because the cost to fix simple problems will be higher than what many owners will be willing to pay.

The veterinary medical associations in states considering these types of legislation changes have been fighting hard to block the passage of such bills. DVMs have learned from their MD counterparts and they do not want the same thing that has happened to human medicine to happen to vet medicine; that is, a significant stratification of the health care system between those that can afford and those that can’t. There will always be owners willing to pay whatever it takes to care for their pet, but if costs become too high, there will be a significant number of owners that simply can’t pay for medical care and THOSE PETS WILL SUFFER.

Personally, I have raised 1 dog from puppy to adult, and it was hell. He was worth every minute of it, I now know, but I don’t think I’d want to go through it again. I had a cardiac workup on him at 6 months, when he was still a horrible puppy. He grew into a little genius, and he’s irreplaceable. My dogs are my kids. I’m responsible for keeping them healthy and safe so they’ll be around for a long time.

If this melamine contamination turns out to be bigger – if children start dying because companies chose cheap suppliers instead of quality suppliers – if premium brands turn out to have skipped basic quality checking to save money – is that okay? Would the parents who nursed their kids to the death, FEEDING THEM THE VERY POISON THAT WAS KILLING THEM, be entitled to emotional distress claims?

Wouldn’t a pet parent experience similar emotional distress? The only difference is that a pet owner expects to outlive their pet babies, but we darn well expect to get all the years we can.

You can get an idea of the dollar value of a pet by what people pay for their pets. Look at Veterinary insurance costs. Look at the vet care people pay for out of pocket – chemotherapy, dialysis, open-heart surgery. Look at the costs of boarding, grooming, walking, day-care. The elaborate furniture people buy for their pets. The article cites settlement amounts of $500, $5k, $20k, $75k. I would estimate the lifetime costs of either of my dogs at around $10-20k. If I’m willing to pay that for them, then to some extent, that establishes their monetary value to me. A negligent defendent doesn’t get to decide “BMWs are overpriced, I’ll just pay you for a pinto and a paint job and call it even.” Then why would we let the courts devalue a member of our family?

It makes sense – people are attached to their pets, and to some, there pet is all they have. I’m not going to debate if it’s a ‘healthy’ relationship, but it’s definitely an emotional one.

IMO – it’s worth the total cost of investment with the animal – they’re right in the article, it’s somewhere between property and people that animals lie.

Actually, I don’t really think of my dog in terms of his monetary worth any more than I would a child. By that I mean he isn’t a mere piece of property, although he is my “property” and my responsibility, and I did pay $300 just to “own” him.

However, I feel an obligation to provide for him and take care of his needs similar to how I would for a child. He is a companion to me and a treasured family member. This has only become more clear as he’s getting very old and has had a couple of serious illnesses and I’ve started to have to consider putting him to sleep. It’s a terrible decision to make — I’ve had to do it before and it’s never any easier. It’s also terrible spending a sleepless night with a pet who is very ill — I’ve done it several times. It’s an equivilent emotional distress to having a sick child.

If he had suffered from the food poisonings — well, I would have wanted vengence for that. Any monetary reward wouldn’t have been sought to cover the costs of replacing property — its somewhat insulting to consider somebody trying to “replace” my dog, it wouldn’t be possible. He has a personality all his own and isn’t replaceable.

Rather, in that position I’d want to pursue a meaninful act against the conditions that allowed the death to take place. I know companies notice more when they have a huge, igh publicity lawsuit settled against them than if they are told to pay an incidental fine. I’d want the vengence of the high publicity, high dollar lawsuit just to wake them up.

DB

I’m generally wary of increased legislation, and yet on the other hand I really sympathize with what people have gone through. It could have easily been me and my dog, except I don’t feed him the sorts of dog food in question. I can’t imagine what that must have been like for the owners — I’ve been through a few major illnesses with my dog and it feels like the world is dropping out from under you.

@Chris:
Not to mention that over the life of the pet you’ll accrue significent expenses, it’s also a bit of a joke to throw $20 out as a sort of “reasonable” cost for the initial purchase of a pet. I realize that you can pick up a pet for free or $20 from some places. To get an animal from the Dumb Friends’ League is a bit more expensive than that. If you have a purebred animal you’ve likely spent hundreds of dollars.

I paid $300 to purchase my purebred from a excellent and reputable breeder and that was 15 years ago, and I’ve spent at least $300/year for 15 years on vet bills. More recently it’s been hitting $750/year as he’s quite old now, and that’s with choosing NOT to have some recommended $1000+ surgeries. That’s before feeding him and buying him bedding and toys. So please don’t dismiss the fair cost of a pet as $20.

Being a pet owner (3 so far), I’m a little biased in this area. However, allowing much larger lawsuits for the wrongful deaths of pets is VERY important right now. If they were possible, the thousands of people who have seen their otherwise health dogs and cats succumb to tainted pet food (melamine poisoning) could sue the perpetrator (Menu Foods) for a significant amount! This would force these large companies to check their food more thoroughly in order to avoid lawsuits. Increased food safety for pets is certainly worth it!