Man's Best Friend: Property or Family Member - An Examination of the Legal Classification of Companion Animals and Its Impact on Damages Recoverable for Their Wrongful Death or Injury
![handle is hein.journals/vllalr47 and id is 437 raw text is: 2002]
MAN'S BEST FRIEND: PROPERTY OR FAMILY MEMBER? AN
EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF
COMPANION ANIMALS AND ITS IMPACT ON
DAMAGES RECOVERABLE FOR
THEIR WRONGFUL DEATH OR INJURY
I. INTRODUCTION
In the United States, there is nearly one pet for every two Americans.1
Further, approximately 124 million dogs and cats live in American house-
holds.2 In one study, forty-five percent of dog owners reported that they
take their pets on vacation.3 Another recent survey revealed that more
than half of companion animal owners would prefer a dog or a cat to a
human if they were stranded on a deserted island.4 Another poll revealed
that fifty percent of pet owners would be very likely to risk their lives to
save their pets, and another thirty-three percent indicated they would be
somewhat likely to put their own lives in danger.5 These statistics indi-
cate that companion animal owners view their pets as family members,
rather than as personal property.6
According to the law, however, companion animals are considered to
be merely personal property or chattel.7 In most jurisdictions, this classifi-
cation has limited the damages that pet owners can recover when their
animals are injured or killed as a result of intentional or negligent con-
duct.8 Traditionally, damages have been limited to the market value of
1. See Richard Willing, Under Law, Pets Are Becoming Almost Human, USA To-
DAY, Sept. 13, 2000, at 1A (describing increase in pet population in United States).
2. See Dave Hager, Pet Policies Look Better As Vet Bills Rise, GRAND RAPIDS PRESS,
May 13, 2001, at J2 (The Humane Society of the United States estimates that
Americans own more than 124 million dogs and cats.).
3. See Sarah Casey Newman, Are Heads Behind Hearts in Love for Pets ?, ST. Louis
PosT-DISe'ATCH,Jan. 27, 2001, at 38 (reporting results of nationwide survey of more
than 2,000 pet owners).
4. See Willing, supra note 1, at 1A (revealing results of 1995 survey of pet
owners).
5. See Cindy Hall & Bob Laird, Risking It All for Fido, USA TODAY, June 24,
1999, at ID (illustrating importance of companion animals in lives of humans).
6. For further discussion of how humans value their animal companions, see
infra notes 99-122 and accompanying text.
7. See Debra Squires-Lee, Note, In Defense of Floyd: Appropriately Valuing Com-
panion Animals in Tort, 70 N.Y.U. L. REv. 1059, 1060 (1995) (recognizing that com-
panion animals are legally defined as personal property).
8. See Kane v. County of San Diego, 83 Cal. Rptr. 19, 21-22 (Cal. Ct. App.
1969) (holding that dog owner entitled to market value of animal on day killed
plus any interest from that date); Altieri v. Nanavati, 573 A.2d 359, 361 (Conn.
Super. Ct. 1989) (noting that damages in veterinary malpractice actions are nor-
mally limited to market value of animal); Columbus R.R. Co. v. Woolfolk, 58 S.E.
152, 154 (Ga. 1907) (holding that market value of dog is proper measure of dam-
(423)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/vllalr47&div=20&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most