Vermont court may decide pet's legal value
Toolbox
By Peter Hirschfeld Times Argus Staff - Published: December 2, 2006
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."
39