GA Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Dog Owners ... Sort of
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:53 pm
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in favor of a family whose dog allegedly died due to the negligence of the kennel where it was boarded, but limited the amount of damages that could be recovered. According to the lawsuit, the dog died because it was given the wrong medication by kennel employees. Formerly, Georgia law limited damages in such cases to the objective value of the pet, the same as any other personal property damaged or destroyed by another's negligence. Since the dog was a shelter dog, not a show dog or breeding dog, that value would be minimal.
The Georgia Supreme Court said that the lawsuit could proceed and the family could recover the reasonable expenses incurred in trying to save the dog. Here, they took the dog to a vet hospital and incurred $67,000 in expenses. However, the Court also said they could not recover any damages based on the sentimental or emotional value of the dog. As a practical matter, this ruling will have little effect in most cases (vets and kennels were worried about rising insurance costs), since relatively few people are going to spend anywhere near that amount of money on an ill or injured pet, whereas every dog or cat hit by a car might have been a potential lawsuit had they allowed emotional damages.
Ironically, the dog owner in this case is a partner in one of the leading defense malpractice firms in the State of Georgia (and represented himself in the proceedings). So, he spends most of his time in court trying to limit the damages payable to people claiming they are injured by a doctor's malpractice.
http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local/st ... dog/nrbRB/
The Georgia Supreme Court said that the lawsuit could proceed and the family could recover the reasonable expenses incurred in trying to save the dog. Here, they took the dog to a vet hospital and incurred $67,000 in expenses. However, the Court also said they could not recover any damages based on the sentimental or emotional value of the dog. As a practical matter, this ruling will have little effect in most cases (vets and kennels were worried about rising insurance costs), since relatively few people are going to spend anywhere near that amount of money on an ill or injured pet, whereas every dog or cat hit by a car might have been a potential lawsuit had they allowed emotional damages.
Ironically, the dog owner in this case is a partner in one of the leading defense malpractice firms in the State of Georgia (and represented himself in the proceedings). So, he spends most of his time in court trying to limit the damages payable to people claiming they are injured by a doctor's malpractice.
http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local/st ... dog/nrbRB/