Court: Texas Couple Can Sue Over Dog’s Sentimental Value

November 16, 2011

A Texas appeals court reinstated a couple’s lawsuit against animal shelter that accidentally euthanized their 8-year-old dog, ruling that they can sue to recover the sentimental value of their pet.

Randy Turner, the attorney for plaintiffs Jeremy and Katherine Medlen, said this would be the first time in Texas that someone could sue for a pet’s sentimental value.

“No matter how attached they were to their pet, and no matter how devastated they were by its death … they (had been) only entitled to the `market value’ of the animal,” Turner said.

A lower court judge had dismissed the Medlens’ lawsuit over the death of their Labrador mixed breed, Avery, saying they could only sue for the market value of the pet, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.

But the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ruled this month that the couple can sue, saying sentimental damages can be recovered for the loss or destruction of all types of personal property, including pets. The lawsuit did not specify the amount of damages it was seeking.

“Dogs are unconditionally devoted to their owners. Today, we interpret timeworn supreme court law in light of subsequent supreme court law to acknowledge that the special value of `man’s best friend’ should be protected,” the court ruled in its 11-page opinion.

Avery escaped in June 2009 from his family’s back yard in Fort Worth and was picked up by the city’s animal control. The Medlens found him at the shelter the next day, but through a series of slip-ups and errors, Avery was added to the euthanasia list and put to sleep.

Jason Lamers, a spokesman for Fort Worth, which runs the Chuck Silcox Animal Care and Control Center, said the city disagrees with the ruling.

“What happened in (this) case was beyond unfortunate, but we remain focused on preventing this from happening again and saving as many pets as possible regardless of any court-imposed value,” he said.

Paul Boudloche, an attorney for a former shelter worker the Melens are suing, said he doesn’t know if his client will appeal the ruling.

If there is no appeal, the case would likely go back to trial court where a judge could consider the lawsuit on its merits or consider a request to dismiss it on the grounds that the worker had governmental immunity.

 

 

Subscribe Like this article?
Subscribe to our free email newsletter.

Latest Comments

  • May 15, 2012 at 8:39 pm
    MJJP says:
    Anyone having problems with TRIFEXIS? I have a boxer that was healthy up until using this stuff at the end of April. She now has no energy, has seizures, sleeps constantly.
  • November 21, 2011 at 2:43 pm
    Just wondering..... says:
    Is there any type of malpractice insurance that would cover an occurence such as this one? I know that vets carry this type of coverage, so why wouldn't the animal shelter?
  • November 18, 2011 at 1:48 pm
    Ziggy says:
    Really??? Now we are going to put a value on FEELINGS????? I can see it now... You hurt my feelings, give a million dollars. We will never get out of our current mess until... read more
See all comments

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features