Texas Supreme Court rules that bereaved dog owners can't sue for emotional damages when someone else kills their pet
The Texas Supreme Court has ruled
that bereaved dog owners cannot sue for emotional damages when someone
else is to blame for the death of a pet.
The law had been challenged by Jeremy and Kathryn Medlen, whose Labrador retriever, Avery, was mistakenly euthanized at an animal shelter in 2009.
In his 25-page opinion released on Friday, Justice Don Willet had sympathy for the couple, opening with a passage from the English poet Lord Byron and opining the heartache wrought by 'Old Yeller'.
But he concluded that 'the human-animal bond, while undeniable' doesn't elevate to collecting money for grief. Under Texas law, pets are property and the majority will have no economic value.
'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' he 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.
'No one disputes that a family dog is a treasured companion. But it is also personal property, and the law draws sensible, police-based distinctions between types of property.'
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.
The Medlens said Avery was equally irreplaceable, although the pet was essentially worthless in terms of market value.
She wound up at an animal shelter after running away from home, and was mistakenly put down even though a worker at the pound placed a tag on Avery instructing that she not be euthanized.
Adding to the heartbreak, the Medlens had tracked Avery down at the shelter but did not have the $80 on hand to retrieve her. When they returned with the cash a few days later, it was too late.
Randy Turner, the family's attorney, said Kathryn Medlen sobbed upon hearing the court's decision.
'They never cared about the money. They just wanted to change the law,' Turner said. 'This is a huge defeat for our four-legged friends.'
Dogs are considered property under Texas law.
Turner argued to the high court in January how that should make collecting sentimental damages for a pet no different than suing for the negligent destruction of family heirlooms.
At a hearing in January,
Justice Willet posed a hypothetical situation: a twin sister walking a
dog down the street when both are run over by a distracted driver
barreling around the curve while texting.
Under the law, damages for mental anguish can be collected only for the death of a parent, spouse or child. So wouldn't it be odd, he asked, for the sister to collect money for the dog, but not her twin?
Turner responded: 'Let's change the
hypothetical and say that instead of walking her dog, she's carrying a
family heirloom. And there's a collision, the sister is killed, and also
the cherished family heirloom is destroyed.
'Well, under existing Texas law handed down by this court, there is no dispute she couldn't recover a wrongful death case for (her) sister, but she could for the sentimental value of the heirloom.
'That would be a strange result, but that's the law.'
But the nine-member court disagreed in a unanimous opinion. Yet they weren't without sympathy.
'Even the gruffest among us,' Willet wrote, 'tears up [every time] at the end of Old Yeller
The law had been challenged by Jeremy and Kathryn Medlen, whose Labrador retriever, Avery, was mistakenly euthanized at an animal shelter in 2009.
In his 25-page opinion released on Friday, Justice Don Willet had sympathy for the couple, opening with a passage from the English poet Lord Byron and opining the heartache wrought by 'Old Yeller'.
But he concluded that 'the human-animal bond, while undeniable' doesn't elevate to collecting money for grief. Under Texas law, pets are property and the majority will have no economic value.
Defeat: Jeremy and Kathryn Medlen wanted to
change Texas law regarding emotional damages for the killing of a pet
after their dog, Avery, was mistakenly euthanized at an animal shelter
'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.
'No one disputes that a family dog is a treasured companion. But it is also personal property, and the law draws sensible, police-based distinctions between types of property.'
Rejected: But the court ruled Avery was property with no value, so no damages should be paid
The Medlens said Avery was equally irreplaceable, although the pet was essentially worthless in terms of market value.
She wound up at an animal shelter after running away from home, and was mistakenly put down even though a worker at the pound placed a tag on Avery instructing that she not be euthanized.
Adding to the heartbreak, the Medlens had tracked Avery down at the shelter but did not have the $80 on hand to retrieve her. When they returned with the cash a few days later, it was too late.
Randy Turner, the family's attorney, said Kathryn Medlen sobbed upon hearing the court's decision.
'They never cared about the money. They just wanted to change the law,' Turner said. 'This is a huge defeat for our four-legged friends.'
Dogs are considered property under Texas law.
Turner argued to the high court in January how that should make collecting sentimental damages for a pet no different than suing for the negligent destruction of family heirlooms.
Decision: The ruling at the Texas Supreme Court,
pictured, on Friday was unanimous but there was still sympathy for the
families of owners who unfairly lose their animals
Under the law, damages for mental anguish can be collected only for the death of a parent, spouse or child. So wouldn't it be odd, he asked, for the sister to collect money for the dog, but not her twin?
'This is a huge defeat for our four-legged friends'
Attorney Randy Turner
'Well, under existing Texas law handed down by this court, there is no dispute she couldn't recover a wrongful death case for (her) sister, but she could for the sentimental value of the heirloom.
'That would be a strange result, but that's the law.'
But the nine-member court disagreed in a unanimous opinion. Yet they weren't without sympathy.
'Even the gruffest among us,' Willet wrote, 'tears up [every time] at the end of Old Yeller