Vermont court may decide pet's legal value
December 2, 2006
By Peter Hirschfeld, The Times Argus
MONTPELIER – When Sarah Scheele's "little boy" was
shot and killed by a Northfield man one summer day
in 2003, the bereaved "mother" sued the convicted
gunman for loss of companionship.
Vermont's civil courts have long awarded monetary
damages to the families of crime victims, but this
case, a judge said, merits no such recompense.
Scheele's little boy was, in fact, a 5-year-old
mixed breed dog named Shadow. And no matter the bond
between owner and pet, Judge Matthew Katz ruled in
January 2006, Vermont statute does not recognize the
loss of animal companionship as a basis for civil
awards.
"He was our child," Scheele says. "We had so much
love to give so we adopted a dog."
The case is not unique. Dozens of similar claims
have been filed by bereaved pet owners across the
nation. But judges have yet to issue a definitive
ruling in favor of a loss of animal companionship
claim. The Scheeles, who plan to appeal Katz's
decision in Vermont Supreme Court, hope Shadow's
legacy will be a precedent-setting victory in the
state's highest court.
"Judge Katz is not letting loss of companionship go
through because he doesn't see any basis of law for
that in Vermont," says Heidi Groff, the Montpelier
lawyer representing Sarah and Denis Scheele. "My
clients' intent is to appeal that to the Supreme
Court."
The Scheeles who live in Maryland, are, by their
own admission, extremely affection-ate with their
pets. Sarah Scheele endured five miscarriages and,
unable to have children, decided to adopt Shadow
from a Maryland animal shelter. They 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.
Sarah says she still has nightmares about the
afternoon of July 19, 2003. She and her husband had
been picnicking with their two dogs on a church
green in Northfield while on vacation. After
lunching on turkey sandwiches, Shadow wandered onto
a nearby residential lawn where property owner Lewis
Dustin, 70, fired a single fatal shot from a pellet
gun at the strolling canine. Dustin said he was
aiming for Shadow's hindquarters; the shot went into
the dog's chest and tore his aorta.
Dustin was convicted of misdemeanor animal cruelty
in December 2003, even though the Scheeles had
violated the town's leash ordinance by letting
Shadow run free. 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 do at an animal shelter.
Pet owners are free to sue for damages in the
negligent or intentional killing of a pet, but
courts assess the animals' value as it would
inanimate property. Geordie Duckler, an Oregon
lawyer specializing in animal legal issues, says the
retail price of a pound puppy hardly recognizes the
bond shared by Shadow and his owners.
"The idea is that the bond has intrinsic value,"
Duckler says. "The relationship that took years to
develop – with walks on the beach, visits to the vet
and interactions on the couch – make that dog a very
different thing than what you bought for $40."
Groff says existing legal rulings substantiate
Duckler's claim. The Vermont Supreme Court said 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 animal's relationship with
its human companions." And in a landmark 1979
decision in New York that overrode precedent, a
judge said "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."
Recent rulings in Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania
and Washington have denied pet owners' claims of
loss of companionship. However courts in other
states have awarded damages for emotional distress
caused by the loss of a pet. Duckler says courts
traditionally lag behind social mores and that the
concept of a pet as inanimate property is an
anachronism that deserves judicial reconsideration.
"The world changes and people's relationship
dynamics change," Duckler says. "I think when we
finally get a judge to recognize that special
relationship between pets and their owners, it'll be
that flipping of the switch."
The Scheeles hold out hope that their Supreme Court
battle on Shadow's behalf will be the landmark legal
precedent lawyers like Duckler have been pursuing
for years.
"This is absolutely not about money," Denis Scheele
says. "This is about making it so that Shadow's
death was not in vain."
The
original article can be found at:
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061202/NEWS/612020371/1002/NEWS01
A link
we created would not function properly so the entire
article has been posted. All credits are given
to the writer and publisher.
