Placing economic value on a companion animal is a complex task and disputed theory in our courts. When humans die or are hurt due to the intentional or negligent acts of others, it is also a difficult task in placing a dollar figure to compensate the victims, but at least the theory is understood and accepted. It is only the case-by-case evaluation in how much to award that is contested.

In most states, animals are treated as only personal property; therefore, the economic damages are limited generally to replacement costs and associated medical costs and expenses. But as I have written previously, there is a growing trend in that most jurisdictions are treating companion animals as something between property and a human family member.

When a person's pet dies because of someone else's actions or inactions, the tortfeasor just didn't kill a pet, he killed a relationship.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Sea Land Services v. Gaudet listed eight criteria in determining damages for the wrongful death of a human. They are the following:

1. Relationship of husband/wife or parent/child;
2. Continuous living together of parties prior to wrongful death;
3. Lack of absence of deceased or beneficiary for extended periods of time;
4. Harmonious marital or family relations;
5. Participation in family activities;
6. Common interest in hobbies, scholarship, art religion, or social activities;
7. Disposition and habit of deceased to tender aid, solace, and comfort when required; and
8. Ability and habit of deceased to render advice and assistance in financial matters, business activities, and the like.

These are the eight factors that the courts look at in determining damages involving humans, but can't the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh factors also be applied to the death of one's companion animal? The animal provides six out of the eight factors, or 75 percent of the factors, that humans do. Now it's just a matter of evaluating each factor toward a specific companion animal on a case-by-case basis, just as we do with humans.

Lawsuit Filed over War Emblem's bonus payment
War Emblem, the Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner, is the subject of a lawsuit between his former owner, Russell Reinman, and the Estate of Saudi Prince Ahmed Salman, who died on July 22, 2002. A $1 million bonus is at issue. The National Jockey Club (NJC) sponsored a bonus to the winner of a horse who won both the Illinois and Kentucky derbies, which War Emblem did. Reinman claims that since he was still the owner of War Emblem when the horse won the Illinois Derby, he is entitled to half of the bonus. The Salman Estate claims that Reinman's claim was discharged when he conveyed War Emblem. This case is still pending.

Reference
Geordie Duckler, "Economic Value of Companion Animals," Animal Law, Vol. 8, (Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College, 2002) 199-221.

- Steven M. Logan, ESQ.; BS, New Hampshire College (now Southern New Hampshire University); JD, California Western School of Law. He was a prosecutor in Broward County, Fla. Logan has been in private practice since 1988, dealing in criminal defense cases (except animal abuse), and family, animal and sports law. His office is in West Palm Beach, and he can be contacted at (561) 791-1882. His Fort Lauderdale number is (954) 522-3902 and his e-mail is Stevelogan@prodigy.net.