Vermont Supreme Court Ruling Supports Animal Welfare in Turning Back Attempt to Expand Pet-Related Litigation

WASHINGTON, May 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a decision that will protect animal health and welfare by containing the costs of caring for animals, the Vermont Supreme Court today affirmed a lower court decision not to introduce non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, into pet litigation. The Animal Health Institute joined numerous knowledgeable pet welfare and ownership organizations in submitting a "friend of the court" brief urging the Vermont high court to adopt this position.

In its ruling, the court explained that emotional damages are rarely permitted for injuries to others and generally not available for the loss of many close relatives. Therefore, even though pets have special characteristics as personal property and that people have unique emotional attachments to their pets, the court would not expand the law to provide recovery options for pets that are not available in many human-human relationships. To rule otherwise, the court stated, would be "a dramatic alteration to the law."

"It is beyond dispute that our bond with pets often, if not usually, transcends their value to strangers in the marketplace," reads the decision. "Experience tells us that emotional attachments can also attend our associations with farm and work animals. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a compelling reason why, as a matter of public policy, the law should offer broader compensation for the loss of a pet than would be available for the loss of a friend, relative, work animal, heirloom or memento -- all of which can be prized beyond measure, but for which this state's law does not recognize recovery for sentimental loss."

Joining the Animal Health Institute in submitting its "friend of the court" brief were the Vermont Federation of Dog Clubs, the American Kennel Club and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. The group explained in their brief that, "While a few owners may monetarily benefit from these awards, their pets do not, and other people's pets will end up going without needed medical care. This is because the cost of pet care will increase due to this new liability, causing many owners to be unable or unwilling to provide their pets with necessary and proper medical treatment."

In responding to the court's decision today, Dr. Kent McClure, General Counsel for AHI said, "We commend the Vermont Supreme Court for siding with animals and helping to protect a cost structure that has allowed people to care for and form emotional attachments to their pets. Keeping costs affordable is important to allow people of all income levels to enjoy access to care for their pets."

Dr. McClure further explained that owners can already be fully compensated in these lawsuits. "The current legal system already provides fair compensation to aggrieved pet owners. Owners can be fully compensated for their out-of-pocket expenses and for punitive damage awards where there is an intentional malicious act. These new damages are unnecessary to owners and harmful to pets."

The Vermont Supreme Court joins a long line of state courts reaffirming the longstanding legal principle that emotional harm damages are not allowed in litigation over pets. In the past few years, state supreme and appellate courts in nearly thirty states have reaffirmed that emotional loss in pet injury and death cases is not compensable under any legal theory. In addition, a 2007 Gallup Poll found an overwhelming majority (63%) of Americans, including pet owners, said that pet owners should only be entitled to actual economic damages, and not pain and suffering-type awards.

Today's Vermont Supreme Court's decision can be found at http://170.222.4.25/supct/current/op2008-030.html. The brief filed by AHI and other pet groups is available on request.

AHI represents the companies that manufacture animal health products -- the pharmaceuticals, vaccines and feed additives used in modern food production, and the medicines that keep pets healthy.