Paris Hilton can breathe a little easier...

California's Governator over the weekend vetoed a law that would have prohibited driving while holding a dog (or any animal) in your lap or in your arms. Violators could have been fined as much as $150.
This from the same Arnold Schwarzenegger who just banned texting while driving.

The legislation had been dubbed "the Paris Hilton Law," given the celebutant's practice of motoring around town with her four-legged accessories.

However, it is illegal in California to allow a dog to ride unsecured in the back of a pickup truck.
Unlike Florida.

Florida's motor vehicle laws don't address securing animals in cars or trucks. But Walton County, in the northern part of the state, did pass legislation this summer
requiring animals to either be tethered or in a carrier when in the back of open-bed vehicles. As I recall, Broward County considered a similar ordinance years ago, but never passed it.

What do you think? Does Florida, or county governments, need to deal with how drivers carry their pets? Have you seen potentially dangerous situations involving motorists and animals?

Here's the California story from the Sacremento Bee.

Schwarzenegger vetoes bill forbidding drivers to hold pets

By Jim Sanders and Kevin Yamamura
from the Sacramento Bee, Sept. 28, 2008

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation Saturday that would have banned motorists from holding a live animal in their laps or arms.

The Republican governor gave no specific explanation other than to blame his veto of Assembly Bill 2233 on the recent budget dispute.

As he has with six dozen other bills this signing period, Schwarzenegger attached a uniform four-sentence message explaining he is signing bills only of the "highest priority" during the condensed signing period caused by the 85-day budget delay.

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives ridiculed the lap-dog measure as excessive government and dubbed it the "Paris Hilton Bill" in honor of the celebrity dog lover.

Violators would have faced a base fine of $35, which could have risen to $150 with state and county fees.

Assemblyman Bill Maze, the bill's author, said he proposed AB 2233 after seeing a Tulare County woman driving with three dogs on her lap.
"One had its feet on the steering wheel and the other two were leaning over her left arm," said Maze, R-Visalia.

> Discuss this entry

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).

> Discuss this entry