http://www.sunherald.com/prnewswire/story/1332898.html

SunHerald.com May 8, 2009

Vermont Supreme Court Ruling Supports Animal Welfare in Turning Back Attempt to Expand Pet-Related Litigation

WASHINGTON, May 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "In a decision that will protect animal health and welfare by containing the costs of caring for animals, the Vermont Supreme Court today affirmed a lower court decision not to introduce non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, into pet litigation. The Animal Health Institute joined numerous knowledgeable pet welfare and ownership organizations in submitting a "friend of the court" brief urging the Vermont high court to adopt this position.

"In its ruling, the court explained that emotional damages are rarely permitted for injuries to others and generally not available for the loss of many close relatives. Therefore, even though pets have special characteristics as personal property and that people have unique emotional attachments to their pets, the court would not expand the law to provide recovery options for pets that are not available in many human-human relationships. To rule otherwise, the court stated, would be "a dramatic alteration to the law."

""It is beyond dispute that our bond with pets often, if not usually, transcends their value to strangers in the marketplace," reads the decision. "Experience tells us that emotional attachments can also attend our associations with farm and work animals. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a compelling reason why, as a matter of public policy, the law should offer broader compensation for the loss of a pet than would be available for the loss of a friend, relative, work animal, heirloom or memento -- all of which can be prized beyond measure, but for which this state's law does not recognize recovery for sentimental loss."

"Joining the Animal Health Institute in submitting its "friend of the court" brief were the Vermont Federation of Dog Clubs, the American Kennel Club and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. The group explained in their brief that, "While a few owners may monetarily benefit from these awards, their pets do not, and other people's pets will end up going without needed medical care. This is because the cost of pet care will increase due to this new liability, causing many owners to be unable or unwilling to provide their pets with necessary and proper medical treatment."

"In responding to the court's decision today, Dr. Kent McClure, General Counsel for AHI said, "We commend the Vermont Supreme Court for siding with animals and helping to protect a cost structure that has allowed people to care for and form emotional attachments to their pets. Keeping costs affordable is important to allow people of all income levels to enjoy access to care for their pets."

"Dr. McClure further explained that owners can already be fully compensated in these lawsuits. "The current legal system already provides fair compensation to aggrieved pet owners. Owners can be fully compensated for their out-of-pocket expenses and for punitive damage awards where there is an intentional malicious act. These new damages are unnecessary to owners and harmful to pets."

"The Vermont Supreme Court joins a long line of state courts reaffirming the longstanding legal principle that emotional harm damages are not allowed in litigation over pets. In the past few years, state supreme and appellate courts in nearly thirty states have reaffirmed that emotional loss in pet injury and death cases is not compensable under any legal theory. In addition, a 2007 Gallup Poll found an overwhelming majority (63%) of Americans, including pet owners, said that pet owners should only be entitled to actual economic damages, and not pain and suffering-type awards.

"Today's Vermont Supreme Court's decision can be found at

http://170.222.4.25/supct/current/op2008-030.html

"The brief filed by AHI and other pet groups is available on request.

"AHI represents the companies that manufacture animal health products -- the pharmaceuticals, vaccines and feed additives used in modern food production, and the medicines that keep pets healthy."

SOURCE Animal Health Institute

http://www.ahi.org/

Animal Health Institute home page

http://www.ahi.org/content.asp?contentid=759

Members' Page

Mars Veterinary 
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company

among others.  This is a PFI-type lobbying organization; it looks like they deserve our close scrutiny as much as Duane-o, Nancy "Hershey Bar" Cook, et. al. do.

Oh, my goodness, bug, I disagree respectfully, but very strongly. Until the legal penalties for destruction
of these "pet pieces of property" exceeds the profits made by contaminating and adulterating commercial
pet food companies, you are condemning all succeeding generations of pets to the same repeat fate
as the poisoned pets of March 16, 2007.  This is not a family photo or heirloom or an old pair of shoes
to be trashed. The loss of a pet is very akin to the loss of a child, especially as a result of ingestion of
lethal drugs or contaminated poisonous food. Until legal status allows for recovery of emotional pain
and suffering as well as out of pocket expenses and replacement costs, you may as well poison the
food yourself, for no changes to commercial pet food production will be made.
The entire legal strategy of the commercial pet food companies is directed at not having to maintain liability
insurance on their products, and the desire of the veterinary community not to have to have malpractice
insurance because collectible monetary damages are limited for both groups here to replacement cost chump change.
Is that where you really want to leave all succeeding generations of pets and their owners?

I've seen no downward trend in vet bills for the last two and a half years anyway.
So if my vet had to have malpractice insurance, he might keep better records and
be overall more conscious of standards of good practice. And believe me, I love my
vet, who has helped keep my two surviving chronic renal failure cats alive.
As for the commercial pet food companies, escape from better standards of production
and severe legal civil fines and criminal prosecution for their products is what allows
them to continue to poison and adulterate pet food products because the consumer
market has not demanded any better. [stepping down from soap box now and meaning
no personal offense ]

The biggest reason I think its better to change the laws is to get stiffer penalties for animal cruelty cases. I'd also love to see pfc's get slammed for what they are doing with the commercial foods.I agree with bug though,you can't replace someone with money. However 3 cat is right about money being the only thing some of these companies care about. So maybe suing for pain and suffering is the only way to get their attention.

I think we agree largely in the area of stiffer civil fines, bug, as the first must.

Determination of amounts for pain and suffering legally at present are left to individual
juries in the case of human beings, and I think that same system would work for the loss
of indivdual pets, on a case by case basis.

Where I go further than you is in the area of criminal penalties attaching for murder by food
product. With 87 million estimated illnesses caused by food product and approximately 5,700
yearly deaths of U.S. consumers, I want criminal penalties to attach for corporations and
family-held businesses, including pet food companies, for either:

involuntary manslaughter, in "accidental" cases; or

maximum penalties for cases, such as ChemNutra's, were malice aforethought, intentional
premeditated acts, can be likely proven for food and pet food manufacturers.

That would equate out presently to about 6 years hard time for involuntary murder by food product

And 15 years to life for murder by food product in the first degree, with intent and premeditation.

So I'm thinking we're not so far apart in a belief that many legal changes different than the court
decision here are needed to reform pet food and human food production.

Yes, we do. 

Law, just like science based on new discoveries, is an evolving system of
rules based on new case precedent. It would only take one case by determined
consumers to set the legal precedent in favor of a pet legal status as something
more important than an object of little value. Vets wouldn't like it. Pet food companies
would hate it. That's why they're spending so much money and lobbying to fix the
current legal system against recognition of the true damages their products sometimes
do. Consumers just couldn't get the legal system lawyers needed interested in the
class actions of 2007 because the possible recovery was not enough to make the
effort worthwhile under the current valuation pet laws. So there's possibly the threshhold
consumer issue that has yet to be fought through the courts and legislatures on a state
and national level. Murder by food product has to be recognized as the crime it is and punished
accordingly for humans and pets.