Are pets property? Or do they have a unique value as living creatures, and companions to human beings, that puts them in a different category than your Honda Accord, your iPod and other things you "own?"

This question is explored in an article by R. Scott Nolen in the upcoming May 15 issue of the "Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association."

Many pet owners are unaware that in almost every state (including Florida), companion animals legally are considered property. This means that while people can sue to reclaim medical and some other types of expenses for what they consider a wrongful death or injury of their pet, they cannot claim damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship. Losing your pet, legally, is the same thing as losing your Honda Accord.

Yet emotional loss claims are the kind that usually bring higher penalties, especially if the case goes to a jury. Nursing home lawsuits often play heavily on emotional loss. People who believed their animals died last year due to eating tainted pet food, and who wanted to send a message to the manufacturers, were disappointed when they discovered the property stumbling block.

But now the Vermont Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case of a couple that wants to sue their veterinarian and a compounding pharmacy for emotional pain and loss of compansionship. Robert and Susan Goodby claim their cats negligently were given the wrong dose of a hypertension medication that caused both pets to die within days of each other. While the ruling would apply only to Vermont, it could set a precedent for other states.

Needless to say, veterinarians, animal welfare activists and pet people are watching this case closely. We'll keep you posted.

In the meantime, I suggest you read Nolen's upcoming piece. You can do so by clicking here.
The article lays out the battle lines and the arguments both are making. The alliances are interesting: the American Kennel Club sides with the veterinarians against allowing damages for emotional loss, while the Animal Defense Fund took the other position.

The AVMA's position opposing noneconomic damages is posted on the association's Web site (click here to see it).