Pets are not as easily replaceable as property

Re: “Judicial Hellholes report shows more work remains,” Dec. 27

This editorial wrongly listed a claim for “companionship damages” for an injured pet as an example of lawsuit abuse.

Traditionally, one who deliberately injures or kills a pet will only be responsible for the animal’s economic or market value. For a dog or cat originally adopted from a shelter, this will be a pittance.

To many, a pet is a treasured family member and companion. Some even consider their dog or cat as a child. The human-animal bond is strong and emotional. This relationship is worth far more than the animal’s mere purchase price.

Consequently, when calculating damages, it is no abuse of the courts for a wrongfully killed companion animal to be treated different than property. After all, a wrecked car can easily be exchanged for a new one; a pet is unique and can never be “replaced.”

Luke W. Reynolds

Washington

Published December 29, 2006, The Examiner (Washington, DC)