Post by Charles1952 on Jan 23, 2016 21:31:07 GMT -6
I can usually choose sides in any argument fairly quickly, but not this time. I'd hate to be the judge in this case. The story is reported in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and arises from the death of a ten year old dog, Lola the dachshund. Here's the link, which includes a picture of the Monyak family dog in question: Dachshund's Death Drives Dispute
It appears from the article that the kennel did make a mistake and gave the drug to the wrong dog, which resulted in Lola's death. Not surprisingly, the Monyaks are suing Barking Hound Village. The kennel is arguing that the Monyaks can't prove it, but that seems, from a lawyer's point of view, to be just routine posturing. "Make the other side prove everything," is a fairly basic principle.
What makes this case tricky, at least at first glance, is determining the amount of damages, if any, to be awarded to the Monyaks.
Barking Hound Village lawyers, and national groups are upset at the idea, and I suspect some of the worry comes from the prospect of a jury having "Awwww" moments and making a huge award from sympathy.
National groups are looking at the potential results of a large award for the Monyaks.
On the other hand (and there always is another hand),
I've read the article several times and let it simmer in my head for a few days. My tentative thoughts are that Lola had value, but only to the Monyaks. The dog could not have been sold for more than a very minimal amount, and would produce no income through skills and training. Further, the amount of the dog's value could only be determined by the Monyaks. There is no way that the market could provide a value, nor could the value be found by comparing this case to others. Not only was the value dependent entirely on the Monyak's opinion, so were the costs. They chose to spend over $60,000 to keep the dog alive. As heartless as it may sound, that was an optional expense.
What may come of this, regardless of the ruling, is that every Vet, kennel, and animal care center, will produce a new "fine print" legal form for their customers to sign. The form will say something to the effect that any damage to the animal will be compensated for up to the replacement cost of the animal, not to exceed X number of dollars.
Another quick thought. Could the same suit be brought to recover the sentimental and emotional value of dress unintentionally damaged at the dry cleaner's? A photo scratched at the frame shop?
Another quick thought. It is possible to buy pet insurance. Why didn't they, if Lola was so central to the family? It's health insurance for animals. Here's one site for dog insurance:
www.healthypawspetinsurance.com/Dog-And-Puppy-Insurance
But, I'm still uncertain. Anyone care to help me out?
In 2005, the Monyaks had a Labrador retriever named Callie. But their oldest daughter, Suzanne, then 10, wanted a dog of her own.
Elizabeth Monyak said she finally agreed, but only if they adopted a relatively mature, smaller dog. Suzanne found Lola, then 2 years old, on a pet finder website and the family adopted her from the Small Dog Rescue and Humane Society in front of a Sandy Springs pet store.
In 2012, the Monyaks decided to take their three children on a family vacation to France and boarded Lola and Callie in “The Inn,” a Barking Hound Village kennel near the intersection of Piedmont Road and I-85. At that time, Callie had been prescribed Rimadyl, an anti-inflammatory for arthritis. It is the Monyaks’ contention that the kennel incorrectly gave the Rimadyl to Lola, instead of to Callie, during the time they were boarded there.
Elizabeth Monyak said she finally agreed, but only if they adopted a relatively mature, smaller dog. Suzanne found Lola, then 2 years old, on a pet finder website and the family adopted her from the Small Dog Rescue and Humane Society in front of a Sandy Springs pet store.
In 2012, the Monyaks decided to take their three children on a family vacation to France and boarded Lola and Callie in “The Inn,” a Barking Hound Village kennel near the intersection of Piedmont Road and I-85. At that time, Callie had been prescribed Rimadyl, an anti-inflammatory for arthritis. It is the Monyaks’ contention that the kennel incorrectly gave the Rimadyl to Lola, instead of to Callie, during the time they were boarded there.
It appears from the article that the kennel did make a mistake and gave the drug to the wrong dog, which resulted in Lola's death. Not surprisingly, the Monyaks are suing Barking Hound Village. The kennel is arguing that the Monyaks can't prove it, but that seems, from a lawyer's point of view, to be just routine posturing. "Make the other side prove everything," is a fairly basic principle.
What makes this case tricky, at least at first glance, is determining the amount of damages, if any, to be awarded to the Monyaks.
The Monyaks say they spent $67,000 on veterinary and related expenses, including regular dialysis treatments, trying to keep their dog alive, and their suit seeks to recover that sum. . . . In addition to recovering their expenses for Lola’s treatment, the Monyaks also want a Fulton County jury to consider evidence that demonstrates Lola’s value to their family.
“She was a smart, fun dog that gave us a lot of enjoyment,” Monyak said.
“She was a smart, fun dog that gave us a lot of enjoyment,” Monyak said.
Barking Hound Village lawyers, and national groups are upset at the idea, and I suspect some of the worry comes from the prospect of a jury having "Awwww" moments and making a huge award from sympathy.
n filings before the Georgia Supreme Court, the kennel argues that pets are property and plaintiffs may only recover the market value of their property before it was destroyed.
For this reason, Elizabeth and Bob Monyak should be barred from receiving damages for any alleged negligence that might have caused Lola’s death, the kennel said. The Monyaks paid nothing for Lola when they rescued her from a shelter and she had no market value at the time of her death. In essence, the kennel says, Lola was a worthless piece of property.
In court filings, Barking Hound Village’s lawyers contend there are court precedents dating back more than a century which say any recovery of damages for injured or lost animals should be decided by market value, not sentimental value.
“The purchase price of the dachshund was zero dollars, the rescue dog never generated revenue and nothing occurred during the Monyaks’ ownership of the dog that would have increased her market value,” the company’s filing said. “The mixed-breed dachshund had no special training or unique characteristics other than that of ‘family dog.’”
For this reason, Elizabeth and Bob Monyak should be barred from receiving damages for any alleged negligence that might have caused Lola’s death, the kennel said. The Monyaks paid nothing for Lola when they rescued her from a shelter and she had no market value at the time of her death. In essence, the kennel says, Lola was a worthless piece of property.
In court filings, Barking Hound Village’s lawyers contend there are court precedents dating back more than a century which say any recovery of damages for injured or lost animals should be decided by market value, not sentimental value.
“The purchase price of the dachshund was zero dollars, the rescue dog never generated revenue and nothing occurred during the Monyaks’ ownership of the dog that would have increased her market value,” the company’s filing said. “The mixed-breed dachshund had no special training or unique characteristics other than that of ‘family dog.’”
The case has attracted national attention, with veterinary and kennel organizations asking the state high court to adopt Barking Hound Village’s legal position.
If juries are allowed to consider a lost pet’s sentimental value and medical expenses paid by its owners, the costs for kennels and veterinary care will rise, groups such as the American Kennel Club, the Cat Fanciers’ Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.
“Concerns over expanded liability may cause some services, such as free clinics for spaying and neutering, to close,” the groups said. “Shelters, rescues and other services may no longer afford to take in dogs and other pets. … Fewer people will get pets, leaving more pets abandoned in shelters to die.”
If juries are allowed to consider a lost pet’s sentimental value and medical expenses paid by its owners, the costs for kennels and veterinary care will rise, groups such as the American Kennel Club, the Cat Fanciers’ Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.
“Concerns over expanded liability may cause some services, such as free clinics for spaying and neutering, to close,” the groups said. “Shelters, rescues and other services may no longer afford to take in dogs and other pets. … Fewer people will get pets, leaving more pets abandoned in shelters to die.”
On the other hand (and there always is another hand),
The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed its own brief in support of the Monyaks’ position. It cited industry studies showing U.S. pet owners spent a collective $58 billion on their animals in 2014, including $4.8 billion on pet grooming and boarding.
“It is hypocritical for these businesses, including (Barking Hound Village), to exploit the value of the human-companion bond, while simultaneously arguing that the same should be unrecoverable when that bond is wrongfully — and even intentionally — severed,” the defense fund said.
Michael Wells, a University of Georgia law school professor specializing in tort and insurance law, said he believes pet dogs have value beyond their market value. The same goes for other properties, like a treasured family photo.
“I assume (the Monyaks) paid a substantial amount of money to the kennel to take care of their dog,” Wells said. “To then say the dog has no market value doesn’t seem to square with the commitment the kennel made and the money it made from the transaction itself.”
“It is hypocritical for these businesses, including (Barking Hound Village), to exploit the value of the human-companion bond, while simultaneously arguing that the same should be unrecoverable when that bond is wrongfully — and even intentionally — severed,” the defense fund said.
Michael Wells, a University of Georgia law school professor specializing in tort and insurance law, said he believes pet dogs have value beyond their market value. The same goes for other properties, like a treasured family photo.
“I assume (the Monyaks) paid a substantial amount of money to the kennel to take care of their dog,” Wells said. “To then say the dog has no market value doesn’t seem to square with the commitment the kennel made and the money it made from the transaction itself.”
I've read the article several times and let it simmer in my head for a few days. My tentative thoughts are that Lola had value, but only to the Monyaks. The dog could not have been sold for more than a very minimal amount, and would produce no income through skills and training. Further, the amount of the dog's value could only be determined by the Monyaks. There is no way that the market could provide a value, nor could the value be found by comparing this case to others. Not only was the value dependent entirely on the Monyak's opinion, so were the costs. They chose to spend over $60,000 to keep the dog alive. As heartless as it may sound, that was an optional expense.
What may come of this, regardless of the ruling, is that every Vet, kennel, and animal care center, will produce a new "fine print" legal form for their customers to sign. The form will say something to the effect that any damage to the animal will be compensated for up to the replacement cost of the animal, not to exceed X number of dollars.
Another quick thought. Could the same suit be brought to recover the sentimental and emotional value of dress unintentionally damaged at the dry cleaner's? A photo scratched at the frame shop?
Another quick thought. It is possible to buy pet insurance. Why didn't they, if Lola was so central to the family? It's health insurance for animals. Here's one site for dog insurance:
www.healthypawspetinsurance.com/Dog-And-Puppy-Insurance
But, I'm still uncertain. Anyone care to help me out?
