Animal Legal Defense Fund files brief in support of family whose dog was shot by sheriff
Barking up the Wrong Tree: Veterinary & Pet Industry Groups Betray Animals
by Stephen Wells, Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director on September 24, 2013
The Animal Legal Defense Fund has just filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of one of the largest-ever jury verdicts in a case of a dog shot by a police officer. In 2010, a Maryland family successfully sued Frederick County sheriff deputies for an unconstitutional search of the family’s home and for shooting their chocolate Lab, Brandi — who never got closer than three feet to the officers, as shown on a camera mounted on the deputies’ dashboard. Brandi will need life-long medical care as a result of the shooting. In April 2012, a jury awarded the family $620,000 in damages, including compensation for their emotional distress. The case is on appeal — and pet owners may be shocked to learn who rushed to the defense of the officer who shot Brandi, in an attempt to overturn this family’s legal victory.
The groups listed in the brief are Maryland Veterinary Medical Association, American Kennel Club, Cat Fanciers’ Association, Animal Health Institute, American Veterinary Medical Association, National Animal Interest Alliance, American Pet Products Association, American Animal Hospital Association and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council.
They have urged the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to throw out the jury award for emotional distress. These groups make enormous profits off of the emotional bond between humans and animal companions. Yet these same groups hypocritically seek to limit damages solely to an animal’s “economic” or “market” value in the courts.
In fact, these purportedly pro-animal groups regularly support defendants who harm animals. For example, the AKC and AVMA filed briefs against the interests of animals in veterinary malpractice cases like Goodby v. Vetpharm, a 2008 Vermont case in which a pharmaceutical company dispensed a drug twenty times more potent than its labeled dosage, causing the slow and torturous death of the plaintiffs’ two cats. The AVMA and AKC also filed a brief in a precedent-setting 2013 lawsuit against a shelter worker who euthanized a healthy family pet. In that case, Strickland v. Medlen, a Texas appellate court held that state law allowed for the recovery of the sentimental value of an animal. Unfortunately, this decision was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court — at the urging of the AKC and AVMA.
The AKC, AVMA, and other pet industry groups continually challenge “non-economic” damages in wrongful death cases. In their brief in the Maryland case, the groups argue that “there is no basis for creating emotion-based liability in pet litigation, regardless of the nature of the claim.”
Unfortunately, the legal system often still treats animals like “property,” but as the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s brief demonstrates, many courts have recognized the importance of non-economic damages in cases like Brandi’s. Incidents of law enforcement using lethal force against non-threatening animals are far too frequent.
When those who harm animals are held accountable for the full extent of the injuries they cause, it sends a clear message that our society and our legal system is starting to take the lives of animals seriously. When pet industry groups like AKC and AVMA oppose non-economic damages, they are standing in the way of progress for animals.
http://aldf.org/blog/barking-up-the-wrong-tree-vet-pet-industry-groups-betray-animals/
Dog shot by sherrif shown on a camera mounted on the deputies’ dashboard.
Animal groups: $200K family received for emotional distress in dog shooting is improper
Pet, veterinary and animal welfare groups have filed a brief in support of the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office’s appeal of a $607,500 award to a family whose dog was shot by a sheriff’s deputy.
Nine national and local groups filed the brief this week, arguing that the jury’s award for emotional distress stemming from the shooting of the dog will lead to increased costs in veterinary care, pet products and other services.
The groups are narrowly focused in their stand, agreeing that the $200,000 for emotional distress is improper and not supported by current state law, said Phil Goldberg, the lawyer who filed the brief.
The remaining portions of the award were for veterinary costs and other harm to the family.
On April 3, 2012, a six-person jury found Deputy First Class Timothy Brooks violated the rights of Roger and Sandi Jenkins under the Maryland Constitution when he shot their chocolate Labrador retriever, Brandi, on Jan. 9, 2010, while he and Deputy First Class Nathan Rector were at their Bullfrog Road home looking for their son, who was wanted on a civil warrant.
The jury awarded $620,000 to the family, but that amount was later adjusted by a Circuit Court judge to $607,500 to comply with state law that caps damages for veterinary bills at $7,500.
full article
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/crime_and_justice/article_f4f51bc1-52be-51e0-820b-4e5c39066941.html?mode=jqm
= new reply since forum marked as read
