Legal News

On Pets and the Law: How Much is Buster Worth?

By Ashby Jones

Ask a pet-owner how much his or her pet is worth, in cold, hard financial terms. After the owner’s slackened jaw straightens, we’re betting that in many instances, the answer is a figure far greater than the replacement value of the pet itself. (This theory might not hold if the pet is a Snow Macaque, a Lavender Albino Python, a White Lion Cub, or any other animal from this list of the world’s most expensive pets.)

So what does this have to do with the law? Let us help out on that front. A lawsuit slated to go to trial next week down in Virginia could help redefine the theory — at least in that state — on what how a pet-owner should be compensated if a pet is wrongfully killed. In many states, tort law provides the owner simply gets the replacement value of a pet.

But the plaintiff in the Virginia case, represented pro bono by Orrick partner and former White House counsel Lanny Davis, feels the amount should be much higher in certain circumstances. Davis likened the case to that of a family heirloom, which has worth well beyond its street value. Click here for the story, from the Washington Post.

The facts of the case: A 42-year-old paralegal named Jeffrey Nanni has sued his former domestic partner, Maurice Kevin Smith, alleging that Smith maliciously killed their 12-pound Chihuahua, Buster, two years ago by hitting him with a wooden board. Smith was found guilty of assault and battery and cruelty to animals in connection with the incident.

Since Buster’s death, the suit says, Nanni “continues to suffer severe emotional distress” and should be compensated for it. The suit asks for monetary damages for Buster’s worth to Nanni, “which includes Buster’s unique value . . . as a companion animal.” The suit asks for no less than $15,000 in damages.

Smith said in an interview with the Post that he’ll be able to prove he did not kill the dog and said the suit is an attempt to “extort” money from him. He contends that it was Nanni who caused the dog’s head to be hit by the board. Smith is representing himself in the case.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled on an Arlington County case in 2006, saying a woman whose car was rear-ended by a bus could not collect damages for emotional or mental anguish for injuries sustained by her dog in the accident. A footnote in the ruling, however, noted that some states permit recovery of damages for emotional distress in cases of animals injured or killed by intentional acts.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on August 17, 2009 (boomark / email).