Seattle should not set bad precedent in pet case

SEATTLE taxpayers are being asked to pay $60,000 to the owner of a dog that was accidentally electrocuted when he stepped on a metal plate connected to one of the city's streetlights. As an animal lover, I have enormous sympathy for the dog's owner. But as a taxpayer and lawyer who sees these types of lawsuits regularly, I ask, "What are the consequences of paying such high awards?"

As in many lawsuits over pets, the owner of the dog here is suing mostly for her pain and suffering stemming from the loss of her pet's companionship. She purchased her dog, which was 6 years old at the time of the accident, for $200.

The law in Washington and virtually every other common-law state is clear on damages that are allowed and are not allowed in animal cases. Owners of animals improperly injured or killed can be fully compensated for their out-of-pocket costs, including reasonable veterinary bills and certain other expenses related to the accident. In addition, when the harm is done to the animal maliciously, an owner may collect other types of damages.

But, pain and suffering damages are generally not allowed for negligent injury — just like pain and suffering damages are not allowed when a human best friend or certain family members are killed. They also are not available when someone accidentally destroys an important and highly sentimental family heirloom.

Washington's appellate courts made it clear that they will not make an exception to this general rule for pet owners. In a case I was involved in a couple of years ago, the court stated, "it is well established that a pet owner has no right to emotional distress damages or damages for loss of human-animal bond based on the negligent death or injury to a pet." In another, the court said that damages in pet cases "do not include sentimental value."

It may seem counterintuitive to some, but the reason I personally and professionally oppose changing the law is because allowing these damages could actually harm the animals we profess to love. Current law has produced a stable economic climate for animal care that has made pet ownership economically viable for most people.

Consider the consequences if a few owners were able to collect tens of thousands of dollars every time a pet was injured or accidentally killed.

Taxpayers would be sued every time an animal is harmed by police or animal-control officers performing their duties. We all would pay more for car and homeowner insurance because people would sue every time a dog ran into the road and was accidentally hit.

Local boarders, dog-walkers, groomers and others in animal-care business would have to charge more to afford liability insurance for these lawsuits.

And perhaps most disturbingly, pets would have access to less medical care. This is because many of the cases are suits against veterinarians, and if the pet health-care system is turned into the human health-care system with massive pain and suffering awards, veterinarians would have to charge more — a lot more.

As the current economic downturn has shown, many people will not pay for animal care at the expense of other basic family needs. In fact, when the public was asked about this very issue in 2007, the Gallup polling company found that 63 percent of Americans opposed pain and suffering in pet cases — probably for many of these reasons.

For those of us who want to do everything possible to protect our pets, paying pet owners big pain-and-suffering awards is the wrong answer. Pets do not get the money and have no use for it if they did. Allowing owners to divert money from what other people pay for pet care does nothing to help the pet and inflicts great harm to animals everywhere.

The city of Seattle should reject this claim and offer to pay the owner all damages allowed by law for this tragic accident.