From the Dallas Morning News:
Randy Turner loves animals — all animals. But the Fort Worth attorney is particularly fond of his two dogs and two cats.
Should someone harm his pets, Turner believes he deserves compensation not just for their “market value,” which is minimal, but for their “sentimental or intrinsic value,” which is considerable.
John Cayce also loves animals, especially his Labrador retriever. But the Fort Worth attorney feels that following Turner’s logic would create poor public policy that might cause economic hardships for pet owners and animal service providers.
The Texas Supreme Court may ultimately decide this dogfight if it agrees to hear an appeal of a lower court’s decision that allowed a family to seek damages for “the special value of man’s best friend” after their dog was erroneously euthanized at a Fort Worth animal shelter.
Historically, Texas has valued bundles of fur and wagging tails as worth only what someone else would pay — their market value. But a decision in the case last year departed from more than 120 years of precedent.
The landmark case, on appeal from the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, is being closely watched by legal experts, pet lovers and animal service providers across the country, said Yolanda Eisenstein, who teaches animal law at Southern Methodist University.
Whether the state Supreme Court hears it or not, the case is significant because it garnered public awareness, she said.
Even if “market value” remains the rule, “it’s still not going to be the end of the subject,” Eisenstein said. “It may still end up in the Legislature.”
Turner, who represents the dog’s owners in the case, says increasing liability would give animal service providers such as groomers, veterinarians and kennels “a legal incentive to take good care of them.”
Cayce represents the shelter employee who mistakenly authorized the dog’s euthanization. He said he’s “not some coldhearted lawyer,” but he argues that increasing liability would “make pet ownership something that only the wealthy could afford.”
He also fears it would hike the cost of animal services and possibly force the closure of shelters and rescue operations unable to risk a potentially devastating verdict.
The case arose after Jeremy and Kathryn Medlen’s dog, Avery, escaped from the yard during a thunderstorm three years ago. He was a “mixed breed mutt with no market value,” Turner said. “But he was a member of the family.”
The Medlens located Avery at a shelter, but when Jeremy Medlen went to pick him up, employees told him he needed to pay an $80 fee before the pet could be released.
A “hold for owner” note was put on the cage, but when the Medlens returned, they learned Avery had been killed by mistake.
Turner asked the Medlens if they were willing to sue. He said he’s been waiting for years to raise the issue of the sentimental value of pets in Texas courts.
“I kept having people coming to me and wanting to sue someone who wrongfully killed their animals,” he said. “But as long as they could only recover the market value, it never made sense.
“Really, do you want to pay a lawyer $300 an hour to sue your neighbor for the market value of your mutt? All these years I kept saying it’s not fair, the sentimental value rule should be applied.”
The sentimental value rule in Texas allows property that has little retail worth — such as Grandma’s wedding veil — to be valued for its emotional ties, but it has not been extended to animals.
The decision declaring animals worth only their market value dates to 1891. Texas courts implemented the sentimental value rule for other property in 1963.
Turner, who stresses he filed the case as a property issue, not an animal welfare question, argues that sentimental value should be extended to pets because they are a different type of property.
“Why would you be allowed to sue for the sentimental value of a photo of the dog but not the dog itself?” he asked.
Opponents of extending the rule to pets argue the change would elevate animals beyond the status of human friends.
For instance, if someone is killed by a drunken driver, only certain close relatives, not friends, may be compensated for mental anguish under Texas law.
But Turner says he’s seeking damages for sentimental value — not compensation for mental anguish.
“We’re simply asking that animals be treated like any other piece of property,” he said.
According to Cayce’s petition requesting Supreme Court review, the lower court decision represents a “sweeping change in animal law.”
“Although dogs are beloved companions, they should not be placed into this intimate familial category as a matter of public policy,” the petition said.
Among the opponents of sentimental value are the Texas Municipal League, the Texas City Attorneys Association and seven animal organizations, including the Cat Fanciers’ Association, the American Kennel Club and the American Veterinary Medical Association.
They fear the sentimental value rule could lead to large damage awards by sympathetic juries that would raise the cost of doing business, said Victor Schwartz, a Washington attorney who specializes in public-policy issues.
As a dog owner, Schwartz said he was initially sympathetic to the notion of companionship damages. But then he thought about the consequences it might create for his yellow Labrador retriever.
The potential liability would be a hardship on animal service providers and even well-meaning friends who care for pets.
Turner said concern about “radical jury verdicts” is misplaced. “My response to that is if you want to put caps on damages, do it in the Legislature,” he said.
The Medlens are not interested in compensation, Turner said. They want “to make the city of Fort Worth implement some policy or procedure that this wouldn’t happen again.”
Because cities generally have immunity from lawsuits, Turner sued the shelter employee who mistakenly put Avery on the euthanization list.
Turner said he hated to sue the employee because she was “truly devastated” by the incident. But “it was the only way I could get this case in the courts,” he said.
Ironically, last year, the Texas Supreme Court ruled individual government employees mostly are immune from prosecution — which could result in the case being dismissed without a hearing on the merits.
Even if that happens, Turner said, the issue won’t disappear.
“I’ve got other cases that I’ll take up there on that issue,” he said. “Before I end my career, I’m going to get the Supreme Court to rule on this — one way or the other.”
AT A GLANCE Creature cases
EVOLVING: Animal law is an evolving area that covers legal issues from dog bite cases to setting up trust funds. The State Bar of Texas formed an animal law section for lawyers who handle such cases in 1996.
ON THE SIDE: About 450 lawyers, including 175 in Dallas, belong to the section. Most of those who handle such cases do it in addition to their regular practices, said Yolanda Eisenstein, who teaches at Southern Methodist University and is chair-elect of the American Bar Association’s Animal Law Committee. Five law schools in the state teach at least one course on the subject.