Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
much like women children and slaves used to be animals are considered to be personal property
by the law
this classification not only means that animals do not have legal rights but it also severely
limits the remedies a person can expect to receive if his or her pet is injured or killed
it also affects how a person can provide for a pet in a will or a trust and whether a person
can share custody of a pet after a divorce
currently every state but rhode island considers an animal to be someone's personal property
rhode island treats pet owners as the guardians of their pets though it is questionable how much
weight this classification carries in a legal sense
this status is limiting in nearly all areas of the law but none more so than in tort
law
for example
if an animal is killed or severely injured one cannot recover more than the fair market
value of the animal
as that is the remedy for the destruction of chattel
in most cases this means the cost one paid for the animal
there are two problems with this however
first few would dispute that an animal unlike other tangible property appreciates in value with
time
as in the case as is the case with most relationships
the human animal bond becomes stronger the longer one spends with the other
second fair market value varies widely even among animals
a puppy from a breeder might cost two thousand dollars depending on the breed whereas one
in a shelter is the cost of adoption usually two to four hundred dollars
how can a judge rule that an adopted puppy is not worth as much to the pet owner as one
purchased from a breeder
another area in tort law where we see the limit of this classification is in recovery for
infliction of emotional distress
the law does not recognize this cause of action for injuries done to animals because of their
property status
this means that even if you witness people intentionally abusing
tormenting and seriously harming your pet
you can get nothing more than the cost to repair
which ironically can be three or four fold the fair market value of the pet
many times pet owners want to be sure that pets are well cared for after the owner dies
because property cannot be the beneficiary of a will the owner must then leave bequests
to a person or organization to care for his or her pet
the law however will not enforce this and the owner must choose someone whom he or she trusts
will carry out his or her wishes
fortunately to date thirty seven states have enacted a law that allows an owner to set
up a pet trust for the animals benefit
finally as seventy five percent of pet owners consider their animals to be part of their
families custody issues are now arising in divorce cases
whereas the courts use a best interest standard to resolve custody in visitation
issues of children there's no equivalent standard for animals simply because they are property
although few courts will consider the pets best interest for the most part the dispute is
decided upon which party bought the animal or whether it was a gift from one party to the
other