Texas Court Ruling Gives Pets Higher Legal Status
“Every dog has its day,” so they say. If a recent Texas court ruling is any indicator, we soon may say, “Every dog has his day . . . in court.”
The American Veterinary Medical Association reports,
A Texas appellate court recently ruled that state law entitles the owners of a wrongfully euthanized dog to recover “sentimental” or “intrinsic” damages from a defendant for the loss of the pet.
The decision by Fort Worth’s 2nd Court of Appeals overturning a lower court’s dismissal of the case is a novel interpretation of a 120-year-old precedent from the Texas Supreme Court holding that plaintiffs could recover only an animal’s market value.
“Dogs are unconditionally devoted to their owners. Today, we interpret timeworn supreme court law in light of subsequent court law to acknowledge that the special value of ‘man’s best friend’ should be protected,” according to the 2nd Court’s opinion, issued Nov. 3, 2011.
One dog enthusiast blog calls the decision a “bold move of effectively taking dogs out of the ‘property’ category and giving them increased legal status. It provides an updated reinterpretation of the law, which traditionally views pets as worth only their market value — like a table or a car.”
The decision specifically adds that in the case of such pets, “sentimental” or “intrinsic” value must be considered, and damages can be awarded on that basis.
The use of emotion as a judicial basis here creates a philosophical—if not legal—can of worms. On this same basis radical evolutionists and environmentalists decry “speciesism” and argue that human rights should be extended to animals, for example gorillas and chimpanzees.
Atheist Richard Dawkins is one such activist which I have written about in the past. His argument for gorilla rights says, “It’s very hard to make a purely scientific case for conserving any particular species. . . . The only case I can make is an emotional case; and what’s wrong with that? We are emotional beings. I feel emotional about it.”
Not only does the decision open up the speciesism angle, it also sets a precedent to make individual emotion or sentiment a factor in decisions about many other things, including crimes. This, of course, would be extremely dangerous.
And yet this court is using this very emotional basis for a legal precedent.
No surprisingly, the pet industry and veterinary groups are appealing since the strange ruling will increase liability costs and thus costs in general:
“If this becomes the law of the land, it will lead to higher costs to own a pet, disproportionally hurting middle-class and low-income pet owners. Who will pay for those higher damage awards? The rest of us pet owners, of course,” said Adrian Hochstadt, AVMA assistant director of state legislative and regulatory affairs. “The obvious consequences will include fewer people being able to own pets and, unfortunately, more animal abandonment.” . . .
In a brief petitioning the justices to reverse themselves, the American Kennel Club, The Cat Fanciers’ Association, Animal Health Institute, American Pet Products Association, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council say the verdict “isolates the Second Court of Texas in American jurisprudence and … violated Texas Supreme Court law.” -American Vision News
“Every dog has its day,” so they say. If a recent Texas court ruling is any indicator, we soon may say, “Every dog has his day . . . in court.”
The American Veterinary Medical Association reports,
A Texas appellate court recently ruled that state law entitles the owners of a wrongfully euthanized dog to recover “sentimental” or “intrinsic” damages from a defendant for the loss of the pet.
The decision by Fort Worth’s 2nd Court of Appeals overturning a lower court’s dismissal of the case is a novel interpretation of a 120-year-old precedent from the Texas Supreme Court holding that plaintiffs could recover only an animal’s market value.
“Dogs are unconditionally devoted to their owners. Today, we interpret timeworn supreme court law in light of subsequent court law to acknowledge that the special value of ‘man’s best friend’ should be protected,” according to the 2nd Court’s opinion, issued Nov. 3, 2011.
One dog enthusiast blog calls the decision a “bold move of effectively taking dogs out of the ‘property’ category and giving them increased legal status. It provides an updated reinterpretation of the law, which traditionally views pets as worth only their market value — like a table or a car.”
The decision specifically adds that in the case of such pets, “sentimental” or “intrinsic” value must be considered, and damages can be awarded on that basis.
The use of emotion as a judicial basis here creates a philosophical—if not legal—can of worms. On this same basis radical evolutionists and environmentalists decry “speciesism” and argue that human rights should be extended to animals, for example gorillas and chimpanzees.
Atheist Richard Dawkins is one such activist which I have written about in the past. His argument for gorilla rights says, “It’s very hard to make a purely scientific case for conserving any particular species. . . . The only case I can make is an emotional case; and what’s wrong with that? We are emotional beings. I feel emotional about it.”
Not only does the decision open up the speciesism angle, it also sets a precedent to make individual emotion or sentiment a factor in decisions about many other things, including crimes. This, of course, would be extremely dangerous.
And yet this court is using this very emotional basis for a legal precedent.
No surprisingly, the pet industry and veterinary groups are appealing since the strange ruling will increase liability costs and thus costs in general:
“If this becomes the law of the land, it will lead to higher costs to own a pet, disproportionally hurting middle-class and low-income pet owners. Who will pay for those higher damage awards? The rest of us pet owners, of course,” said Adrian Hochstadt, AVMA assistant director of state legislative and regulatory affairs. “The obvious consequences will include fewer people being able to own pets and, unfortunately, more animal abandonment.” . . .
In a brief petitioning the justices to reverse themselves, the American Kennel Club, The Cat Fanciers’ Association, Animal Health Institute, American Pet Products Association, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council say the verdict “isolates the Second Court of Texas in American jurisprudence and … violated Texas Supreme Court law.” -American Vision News
<><><>*<><><>
Homeland Security Begins Random Armed Checkpoints
In Nazi Germany, “SS” was the abbreviation for the homeland protection squads. In the U.S. government, “SS” stands for “Social Security,” although some people visiting their local Social Security office may be beginning to wonder.
PrisonPlanet.com reports, ”Residents of Leesburg, Florida were shocked to see their local Social Security office turned into a random Homeland Security checkpoint Tuesday morning, as DHS officers armed with semiautomatic rifles and accompanied by sniffer dogs checked identifications of locals.”
“With their blue and white SUVs circled around the Main Street office, at least one official was posted on the door with a semiautomatic rifle, randomly checking identifications. And other officers, some with K-9s, sifted through the building,” reports the Daily Commercial.
The activity was part of Operation Shield, an unannounced drill conducted by the DHS’ Federal Protective Service centered around “detecting the presence of unauthorized persons and potentially disruptive or dangerous activities.”
Thomas Milligan, district manager for the Social Security Administration office, said staff were not informed their offices were about to be stormed by armed FPS officers. DHS officials refused to answer questions asked by local media and left with no explanation at noon. –American Vision News
In Nazi Germany, “SS” was the abbreviation for the homeland protection squads. In the U.S. government, “SS” stands for “Social Security,” although some people visiting their local Social Security office may be beginning to wonder.
PrisonPlanet.com reports, ”Residents of Leesburg, Florida were shocked to see their local Social Security office turned into a random Homeland Security checkpoint Tuesday morning, as DHS officers armed with semiautomatic rifles and accompanied by sniffer dogs checked identifications of locals.”
“With their blue and white SUVs circled around the Main Street office, at least one official was posted on the door with a semiautomatic rifle, randomly checking identifications. And other officers, some with K-9s, sifted through the building,” reports the Daily Commercial.
The activity was part of Operation Shield, an unannounced drill conducted by the DHS’ Federal Protective Service centered around “detecting the presence of unauthorized persons and potentially disruptive or dangerous activities.”
Thomas Milligan, district manager for the Social Security Administration office, said staff were not informed their offices were about to be stormed by armed FPS officers. DHS officials refused to answer questions asked by local media and left with no explanation at noon. –American Vision News
<><><>*<><><>
Homeland Security Expands Monitoring Power To All Journalism, Social Media
Freedom of speech might allow journalists to get away with a lot in America, but the Department of Homeland Security is on the ready to make sure that the government is keeping dibs on who is saying what.
Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.
Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own definition of personal identifiable information, or PII, such data could consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.” Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency. –American Vision News
Freedom of speech might allow journalists to get away with a lot in America, but the Department of Homeland Security is on the ready to make sure that the government is keeping dibs on who is saying what.
Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.
Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own definition of personal identifiable information, or PII, such data could consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.” Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency. –American Vision News
No comments:
Post a Comment