Animal Law

Pet Killers, Beware of Orrick

By  
on

If Michael Vick can learn to love animals, “be they a dog, or a cat, or … a reptile,” then surely the American courts can’t be far behind.
A couple of weeks ago, we brought you the story of a New Jersey appellate panel which declined to view the family pet as mere property in a divorce proceeding. Now a Virginia court is being asked to award damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from a pet-icide. The Wall Street Journal reports that there is some high profile pro-bono legal counsel taking up the cause of not treating animals as replaceable goods:

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.

Go Orrick. Family heirloom status is just the first step. It won’t be long now until I can bring my dog into the Duane Reade with the same disregard for other people’s shopping experience as parents enjoy now with their no spatial awareness/no vocal modulation street urchins.
Either that or we’ll soon see strollers tied up to stop signs up and down the east side of Manhattan.
After the jump, even the defendant in the civil suit agrees that family pets are worth more than their store bought value.


The Washington post reports that the defendant isn’t arguing that the killed pet was unimportant, just that he didn’t murder it:

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 has denied killing Buster but was found guilty of assault and battery and cruelty to animals in connection with the incident….
Smith, 52, has said it was Nanni who killed Buster. But the night Buster was killed, Smith was arrested. He later stipulated to the facts of the case and took a plea in Arlington General District Court in 2007. Smith served 10 days in jail and was on probation for a year after his plea.

The finder of fact will have to determine if Smith was trying to beat the dog to death, or simply beat the crap out of his partner:

On July 9, 2007, they got into a fight. Nanni picked Buster up in his arms and Smith struck Nanni and Buster repeatedly with a wooden board, the suit says. Buster died while being rushed to an emergency room by Nanni, it alleges. Nanni suffered cuts and bruises, according to the suit.

Sponsored

If liable, the suit asks for $15,000 in damages. That’s much more than the couple of hundred dollars you’d spend picking up a lovable and needy Chihuahua from your local animal shelter or rescue.
The point of a high damage award is pretty clear:

The case was brought to Davis through the California-based Animal Legal Defense Fund, which is trying to help Nanni and has worked with similar plaintiffs across the country.
“We are trying to increase value of their lives to make it more equitable for dog and cat owners who go through these kinds of losses,” said Joyce Tischler, general counsel for the group.

That would be power lawyer Lanny Davis and the moral force of animal lovers everywhere, against Maurice Kevin Smith — who is representing himself and at the very least is guilty of beating a person and a pet with a stick.
Whatever happens in the civil case, I hear the Philadelphia Eagles just made Smith an offer to be the team’s new mascot.
On Pets and the Law: How Much is Buster Worth? [WSJ Law Blog]
Court to Hear Va. Suit Seeking Damages in Chihuahua’s Death [Washington Post]
Earlier: Pet Lovers Take A Bite Out Of Family Court

Sponsored

Topics