Forwarded message - for info, please visit http://tinyurl.com/yh8n43

Courts Ponder Value of Man's Best Friend
By DAVID GRAM, AP

NORTHFIELD, Vt. (Dec. 4) -- When Denis and Sarah Scheele's dog was
fatally shot after wandering onto a man's property, they sued - and
not just for damages. The couple also wanted compensation for their
emotional distress and loss of companionship.

Their case is one of a growing number around the country that asks
courts to recognize what dog owners already do: that man's best
friend is worth more than its retail price.

"When you lose something like that, the loss is immeasurable," said
Sarah Scheele, 47. "You can't just go to a pet store and buy another
animal. It doesn't replace the family member that was lost."

Unable to have children, the Scheeles got two dogs instead. They fed
them human food, brushed their teeth and put coats on them when it
rained.

The Scheeles say the death of Shadow, a shepherd-chow-spaniel mix
they called their "little boy," entitles them to damages beyond the
direct expenses typically awarded in such cases.

Historically, courts have allowed people suing over the death of an
animal to collect such expenses as its purchase price and veterinary
bills.

"Courts look at market value, and I don't think that reflects
society's values," said the couple's attorney, Heidi Groff.

The Scheeles' case began in July 2003, when they drove from their
home in Annapolis, Md., to Vermont to watch his aunt and uncle renew
their wedding vows. They planned to leave the dogs in their truck
during the service.

They got to the church early, so they let the dogs loose, a violation
of the leash law in Northfield, which is 10 miles south of Montpelier.

The dogs wandered into Lewis Dustin's yard. Dustin, 70, who had been
squirrel hunting that day, had a combination BB and pellet gun at the
ready.

According to the Scheeles, Shadow didn't menace Dustin. But Dustin
fired a pellet at Shadow in hopes of scaring him off.

Instead, the shot penetrated the dog's chest and severed an aorta.
Shadow died en route to a veterinarian's office.

Dustin later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of animal
cruelty. He was given a year of probation and ordered to perform 100
hours of community service and pay $4,000 in restitution.

A judge ruled in the Scheeles' civil suit that there is no provision
in Vermont law that would allow them to recover damages for the loss
of Shadow's companionship or for emotional distress.

The couple plan to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"What we're trying to do is expand the law to recognize that the
companionship between a dog and its owner is such that the owner is
entitled to compensation" when that relationship is destroyed, said
David Putter, an attorney hired to help with the appeal.

Though the attorneys acknowledge it's a novel legal theory, noting
that people can't sue for loss of companionship in the deaths of best
friends or domestic partners, they want an exception for four-legged
friends.

In recent years, trial courts in Florida, New York, Illinois,
California, Oregon and Washington have carved out a category for pets
that is somewhere between property and people.

An appeals court in Washington state last May created a new tort
called "malicious injury to a pet," which allows someone to collect
emotional distress damages. The case involved three teenagers who
doused a cat with gasoline and lit it on fire. The cat was euthanized.

Animal law expert Geordie Duckler said appellate courts have lagged
society at large in recognizing the relationship between a pet and
its owner.

"As soon as some good appellate panel (of judges) recognizes this
special relationship that people have had for a long time with their
pets, I think it will be like the flip of a light switch," and the
law nationwide will change, said Duckler, a Portland, Ore., lawyer.

For his part, Dustin believes the issue has been overblown.

"These people think that this dog is a human being," he said. "It's
not a human being. And that dog was trespassing."

Dustin, 74, said he can't afford a lawyer and would take whatever
comes as the litigation continues.

"If they want to put me in jail, that's what they can do," he
said. "I'm not going to pay them anything because I don't owe them
anything. All I'm going to do is go to court and go through the
motions."

Sarah Scheele said she and her husband are pursing the case to honor
Shadow.

"We're not in it for the money," she said. "We want to get national
legislation that will recognize pets as companions and not just
property."

12/04/06 03:27 EST

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. The information contained in the
AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The
Associated Press.

http://tinyurl.com/yh8n43

Posted on SHARE Yahoo group Dec. 5, 2006