Skyscraper Member
Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:31 PM
An attorney friend of mine (Randy Turner) argued this important case before the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled that dog owners can't sue anyone to recover special damages caused by their "loss of companionship" of their pet. This came out of the appeals court in Fort Worth, and made the national headline below.
http://start.toshiba...ap.org>&ps=1011
Skyscraper Member
Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:54 AM
Was he on the winning or losing side?
Of course your characterization of the outcome depends on whether you sympathize with the plaintiff, the family that bereaved the lost pet, or the defendants, those responsible for the death of the pet and various pro-business entities who would not wish to be sued on the basis of a ."loss of companionship" claim. Mr. Turner represented the plaintiff.
Elite Member
Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:11 PM
Did the shelter incur any retribution at all? Sloppy work, a dead dog and a bereaved family deserve SOMETHING.
Voice & Guitars in Big Heaven
Elementary Music Specialist, FWISD
Texas Wesleyan 2015
Shaw-Clarke NA Alumna
Skyscraper Member
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:06 PM
A pet dog or any other animal is treated as personal property. You can sue to recover for economic loss, maybe extra if the animal has some value in terms of breeding or training. Also its utility...like an eye dog for the blind..
Skyscraper Member
Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:10 PM
Was particularly proud of the Texas Supreme Court for their unanimous decision. Really the only smart way to vote. I don't like any lawsuits. Nearly ruining our Country for sure. But that is not why I think this was a good decision. I am a big time animal lover. (I think at this point my estate will go to the North Texas Humane Society though I have not finalized such.) If people claim their animals are worth some great amount, A. The cost of animal health care would skyrocket. (I have to charge you a lot more to care for your dog if you are going to sue me for 50k if it dies.) This goes for doggy daycare centers etc... B. People are mostly bad. Would not take long for bad guys to get dogs from the shelters and then stage "Disasters". (Send them to doggy school full of poison and then claim it was mistreated and sued etc... not to give people ideas)
I am as big of an animal lover is they come. But they are not children even though we know many people love their dogs more than their kids. Maybe most. Animal care needs to be affordable without lawsuits looming. And we can't be suing animal shelters for mistakes. I personally think they should euthanize most every animal that comes in as long as there are many times too many dogs and cats. Maybe have a 24 hour waiting period. Many people will disagree with this but you are not truly an animal lover if you think dogs and cats wandering around in the city breeding is any good for animals in general. I have little politically to be happy about these days. But am thrilled with our Texas Supreme Court.
Skyscraper Member
Posted 13 April 2013 - 09:56 AM
Was he on the winning or losing side?Of course your characterization of the outcome depends on whether you sympathize with the plaintiff, the family that bereaved the lost pet, or the defendants, those responsible for the death of the pet and various pro-business entities who would not wish to be sued on the basis of a ."loss of companionship" claim. Mr. Turner represented the plaintiff.
The case had a clear decision. I was simply asking which side was your friend on, regardless of any larger implications of the case.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
