03-28-04

Couple sues for damages over death of beloved dog

By PETER HIRSCHFELD - as printed in the Boston Globe, The Times Argus, and the Rutland Herald

A Maryland couple whose dog was shot and killed by a Northfield man is seeking unspecified monetary damages in a lawsuit claiming loss of companionship and emotional distress.

The case is the first of its kind in Vermont and could set a legal precedent for the value of pets, which courts now assess as inanimate property.

Lawyer Heidi Groff filed the suit on behalf of Annapolis residents Denis and Sarah Scheele Friday in Washington Superior Court.

 Shadow, the 5-year-old mixed breed male dog that Lewis Dustin shot and killed with a pellet gun in July 2003, has negligible value under current law. The Scheeles contend that the loss of their "little boy" was tantamount to a violent assault on their family, and have filed suit in an effort to expand legal privileges for companion pet owners.

Dustin, 70, was convicted of misdemeanor animal cruelty in Washington District Court in December 2003. The retired Northfield man was sentenced to 11 months in prison, all suspended, and ordered to pay $3,423 in restitution for travel, veterinary and crematory costs and lost wages incurred by the Scheeles. Dustin was also ordered to perform community service, which the court recommended he perform at an animal shelter.

The ruling stemmed from a July 19, 2003, incident in which Dustin shot Shadow after seeing him wandering around his yard. The Scheeles were picnicking with their two dogs, Shadow and Lucy, at a neighboring church. Denis Scheele said in a criminal affidavit that he took his eyes off Shadow to watch his other dog when he heard a loud "pop."

Shadow yelped and ran to his owners. By the time they arrived at a South Burlington animal hospital, Shadow was dead. The veterinarian later said that the animal's injury, a severed aortic valve, would have been fatal regardless of how quickly he received care.

The dog was not barking, growling or baring its teeth, and Dustin did not shout at the dog to scare it away, according to an affidavit. Dustin declined to comment on the case, but the affidavit indicated that he said he was having trouble with dogs around his house and that he was sorry for hurting Shadow. · --

The Scheeles are, by their own admission, extremely affectionate with their pets. The couple endured five miscarriages and, unable to have children, decided to adopt Shadow from a Maryland animal shelter more than four years ago.

"He was our child," Sarah Scheele said. "We had so much love to give so we adopted a dog. We got the best one in the world."

The Scheeles brushed Shadow's teeth twice a day, dressed him in fleece jackets in winter and raincoats in inclement weather, and fed him "people food" three times a day. In a Web site dedicated to Shadow, www.justiceforshadow.com, Sarah laments the loss. "I no longer sit in the blue chair next the CD player every night reading SHADOW a bedtime story and playing the music from Pocahontas," she writes.

"I no longer have a little boy to wrap in my arms and hug and kiss and tell him how much I love him and what a bundle of joy from God he is to my life. I can't get through any task during my day without breaking down and sobbing."

Sarah has seen at least two grief counselors, but the therapy has done little to alleviate the pain.

"It's hard because I know some people think we're over the top," she said. "But we don't really care. That's how we are. That's who we are." · --

The civil case represents an assault on Dustin's character, according to his family.

While the accidental death of Shadow was regrettable, they said, the Scheeles share culpability.

"The town of Northfield has a leash law. This fact was ignored by the Scheeles when the dog was released onto the property of Mr. Dustin," wrote Mike Charron, Dustin's son-in-law, in a letter to the dog's owners. "It is my opinion that any blame for the accidental death of the Scheeles' dog rests not only in the hands of Mr. Dustin (who has paid his debt) but also as much if not more upon the head of the person who carelessly released an unknown and strange dog into an unknown environment with no apparent regard for the safety of the animal or the property owners."

Charron added that Dustin has paid an emotional and financial price for his actions, and that the Scheeles' continuing attacks are excessive.

"How much punishment is enough?" Charron asks. "Mr. Dustin has not only paid the levied costs associated with the accidental death of the dog, he has also publicly and sincerely apologized to you ... and is completing other court-imposed conditions as well."

Dustin's daughter, Joy Charron, said she has watched her father endure an emotional penalty disproportionate to his crime. Dustin has donated money to local soccer teams and been a model father, grandfather and husband, Charron said.

The unflattering portrait the Scheeles are painting, she said, is wholly inaccurate.

"My father is not a mean, dog-killing person. He's a wonderful man," Joy Charron said. "He's gotten hate mail, somebody threw a dead bird on his lawn last year. Believe me, he's more than paid for this. The Scheeles are out for as much money as they can get." · --

At the heart of the Scheeles' suit lies a legal dilemma: What is the value of a dog?

A New York court issued a landmark decision in 1979 that overrode prior precedent, holding that "a pet is not just a thing, but occupies a special place between a person and piece of personal property."

That ruling came in the case of Corso vs. The Crawford Dog and Cat Hospital, in which a woman was awarded damages for the mishandling of her poodle's dead body. The judge said that "to say a (pet) is a piece of personal property and no more is a repudiation of our humanness. This I cannot accept."

Florida later issued a similar ruling.

The Vermont Supreme Court stated in the 1997 case Morgan vs. Kroupa that the worth or value of a pet "is not primarily financial, but emotional; its value derives from the animal's relationship with its human companions."

In a 1999 Vermont Supreme Court case involving a lost dog, the court reiterated its 1997 opinion, saying a dog is "an inherently social creature whose 'value derives from the animals relationship with its human companions.'"

Civil suits in Oregon and California have awarded monetary damages for the loss of a pet.

While the Dustin family maintains the suit is about money, the Scheeles' attorney says her clients are animal advocates.

"The Vermont Supreme Court has already recognized the value of a dog is emotional as well as financial," Groff said. "The Scheeles are asking for the court to acknowledge that special relationship and allow a loss of companionship claim. Allowing this cause of action will finally abandon the antiquated idea that pets are simply property and their worth assessed solely by their market value."

Denis Scheele echoed Groff's sentiments.

"This is absolutely not about money," Denis Scheele said. "This is about making it so that Shadow's death was not in vain."