I feel sorry for the owner, but she doesn’t seem to consider the implications of what she is writing: “ At least fifteen organizations and cities had filed amicus briefs opposing Turner’s argument. Among them were the American Pet Products Association, the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, and the American Kennel Club. They argued that if pet owners could sue for sentimental value, veterinary malpractice insurance premiums would skyrocket, and pet product companies would be hit with class action lawsuits every time someone’s cat got sick from a can of food. ”

If all those things happened, the pet owners are the ones who would end up paying the increased cost, meaning poor people would find it harder to own and care for their pets. That’s seems like a reasonable trade-off, particularly when the risk is under the owner’s control. There is also a lot of passive language in this article to avoid the owner taking responsibility - the dog “got out” of the owner’s control - whereas if it happened to my pet, I would feel that I hadn’t properly secured my pet

A pet is not a chattel to it's owner(s). It's part of the family.

One searing memory that I can't unsee is a video clip taken during the New Orleans evacuations after Katrina. A poodle is jumping up at the closed door of a bus and obviously bewildered that he can't get in and be with his owner.

I have thought many times about that video. If I couldn't smuggle that pet on board, I would hope I wouldn't be able to abandon him/her, and we'd take our chances together.

I don’t doubt the hurt those folks feel is very real.

But I have trouble thinking that opening the legal system to “sentimental value” lawsuits is going to do anything other than just introduce a lot of lawsuits…

> Every single person who’s called me about wanting to sue because their dog was killed did not care about the money. They wanted to send a message. They want to vindicate their beloved pet. They don’t want this person to get off scot-free. They want some kind of justice.

So it would be a legal cost for everyone and nobody suing really wants the money.

Pet law is surprisingly complicated: https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-legal...

I would do anything for my dogs, doesn't matter what it costs, I love both of them so much and can't imagine not having them in our family. They are family.

So in Texas does that mean if I shoot my neighbour’s mutt because they bark all day I only am on the hook for $50?

This is totally insane. Dogs are part of families and should be treated thusly under the law.

The current laws on the book in Texas seem like a great way to lead people towards vigilante justice.

Am I the only "dog/cat person" annoyed at the author's incompetence with her vulnerable puppy?

It seems like the author failed to understand that the world is FULL of incompetent people who present dangers to others, in this case resulting in violent death of her puppy.

Find a new lawyer:

a) you still can and should file suit for the $50. And ask for a Jury trial. Sure it will cost you $10K+, but it will cost that other "owner" at least that much or more to defend. It will NOT be pleasant for them. They may have to capitulate and settle if they cannot afford a lawyer, if that's the cheaper option. The only reason not to is if they are so poor they don't even have $10K or so rich they won't care. Otherwise, the defendant in a lawsuit is already in a very weak position if they have something to lose. Would their homeowners/umbrella coverage pay anything?

b) oh yes, start with $50 for the animal + emotional trauma of say $100,000 (you) due to gross negligence including presumably violating a leash law. Such a cute dog! Dogs as cute as that can go on to have $1M modeling careers. See causing that incident +whatever other rubbish like that a good lawyer can dredge up is on top of the value of the dog. You will end up settling for a lot less, but you can sue for anything. You may not make a lot of money but you can definitely be seriously punitive to the "owner" and may (eventually) break even or better.

c) if you don't have the backing, do a gofundme to pay the fees

d) pester the fuck out of the DA to press additional criminal charges

e) get a representative and/or press interest. might even eventually change those laws

If you are serious about fixing those asshole "owners" who let this happen, you can take a pretty good crack at it.

I hate it when slimy lawyers use these tactics against the "good guys", but there are times like these that it would be useful.

> emotional trauma of say $100,000

AFAIU, Texas strictly limits the scope of negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Negligent infliction of emotional distress is a fairly recent judicial invention. Being one of the first (the first, at least in the U.S., per Wikipedia) to recognize a claim in the absence of physical injury to the plaintiff, AFAIU it's much broader in California than many other jurisdictions. (EDIT: And even under California law this may be a difficult claim to make.) This is probably why Texas lawyers simply dismissed the possibility out-of-hand.