Wow!! Just Wow!! Owners of dead dog sue for emotional loss.

[Valiant Champion]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091217/...s_dog_shooting

After paying a fine of 4000 dollars and having to serve 200 hours of community service you would surely think the man has paid his dues.

[The Dude]

You'd think?

I guess for you human life is sacred, while animal life is 4000 dollars and 200 hours public service?

[Tiberius Tosi]

Wow that is stupid. I can understand monetary compensation by the person responsible for the dog's life and the costs of the dog, but emotional compensation? Screw that.

Around here we actually had a case where a woman was hit by a driver and was suing for medical bills and compensation for the fact that she can't ride her horses anymore so she was forced to get rid of them and the emotional stress was great. The court gave her a big middle finger on the horse argument and gave her just enough money to compensate for the medical bills (but didn't give extra for taking lawyer fees into account so she didn't really get much out of it). This case is REAL stupid.

The Scheeles are particularly devoted pet owners. They feed their dogs human food, brush the dogs' teeth and dress them in raincoats when it's wet outside.

Devoted to killing them? Human food is horrible for animals...

PS- What the hell is a 76 year old man doing with a bb gun? Shouldn't they be taking him to a old peoples' home if he is aiming guns at dogs and shooting them?

[Banana Jelly]

Screw emotional compensation as tiberius said.

[Groundtotem]

As a dog owner my self i can relate to the Scheeles, the point is that dogs and other pets are no longer just "pets" they are a member of the family. The old man obviously intended to harm the dog otherwise he would not have used the bb gun on it. I think he deserves to pay the Scheeles emotional loss.

[boofhead]

I think (no offense Groundtotem) that when a pet becomes a ''member of the family'' on par with its human members that something is wrong. I mean sure, love the animal. But animals aren't people, and everyone who gets a dog knows they will die from illness or misadventure within 20 years - usually less than 15. Dogs get hit by cars, killed by other dogs, by snakes, by injuries all the time. This case seems like an accident too.

[Groundtotem]

I think (no offense Groundtotem) that when a pet becomes a ''member of the family'' on par with its human members that something is wrong. I mean sure, love the animal. But animals aren't people, and everyone who gets a dog knows they will die from illness or misadventure within 20 years - usually less than 15. Dogs get hit by cars, killed by other dogs, by snakes, by injuries all the time. This case seems like an accident too.

No offense taken.

I have had my dog for 13 years and when you have owned a pet that long it's more than just a "pet", it becomes a family member. Perhaps not in the same way to your brother or mother but a family member non the less. I can't see how this could be an accident becuase he aimed a bb gun at the dog and fired, maybe he did not intend the dog to die but that's what happend. Murder is still murder even tough you just intended do minor damage.

[boofhead]

I have had my dog for 13 years and when you have owned a pet that long it's more than just a "pet", it becomes a family member.

The blue heeler we had when we were kids lived for 15 years. She was a great dog. She died. We were sad. We got over it. It really isn' like a brother or sister or parent dying, is it? Such things can traumatize for months or years....or for the rest of somebody's life.

[Groundtotem]

The blue heeler we had when we were kids lived for 15 years. She was a great dog. She died. We were sad. We got over it. It really isn' like a brother or sister or parent dying, is it? Such things can traumatize for months or years....or for the rest of somebody's life.

Of course it's not the same thing when you lose a family member. But losing a pet can be hard to. It all comes down how important your pet is to you.

[Niles Crane]

The blue heeler we had when we were kids lived for 15 years. She was a great dog. She died. We were sad. We got over it. It really isn' like a brother or sister or parent dying, is it? Such things can traumatize for months or years....or for the rest of somebody's life.

For me it was. The first dog I had (who died earlier this year) lived for 13 years. I cried for days afterwards and at least two or three times a week for the next few months I had nightmares in which I had to relive his death in various different ways. I'm sorry, but for some people dogs do become like family members. A day hardly goes by that I don't think about mine. I can entirely empathise with the subject family here, although suing for emotional loss is a bit silly.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

No. Just no. A pet is not a human member, it is there as entertainment and maybe companionship. I have a pet, and I would be upset, but I would not sue for emotional damage. A pet can be replaced, I know it sounds cruel, but when a pet is on level with a human member of the family, they need their priorities straightened.

[Strelok]

The ability that we can sue for purely emotional reasons sickens me.

[Groundtotem]

The ability that we can sue for purely emotional reasons sickens me.

Let me draw you a scenario:

"You're walking down the street with you child walking next to you. You hear a car approaching behind you.
Suddenly the car smashes in to you and your child. The child dies but you live.

During the trial it's established that the driver was drunk and that was the cause of the accident. The only thing you get from the drunk driver is a paid medical bill. Now your son is dead and you will have to live with this incredible pain for all your life."

Why would it be wrong to sue for emotional reasons in this case?

[Strelok]

Let me draw you a scenario:

"You're walking down the street with you child walking next to you. You hear a car approaching behind you.
Suddenly the car smashes in to you and your child. The child dies but you live.

During the trial it's established that the driver was drunk and that was the cause of the accident. The only thing you get from the drunk driver is a paid medical bill. Now your son is dead and you will have to live with this incredible pain for all your life."

Why would it be wrong to sue for emotional reasons in this case?

Because you can still conduct a trial, because the law has been broken by drinking and driving and commiting murder/manslaughter.

Plus, in a lot of cases, sending the person who killed your child to prison doesn't usually help you out all that much. It's a pure act of vengeance.

And the emotional stress part can be and is abused.

[S.L.I.G]

Let me draw you a scenario:

"You're walking down the street with you child walking next to you. You hear a car approaching behind you.
Suddenly the car smashes in to you and your child. The child dies but you live.

During the trial it's established that the driver was drunk and that was the cause of the accident. The only thing you get from the drunk driver is a paid medical bill. Now your son is dead and you will have to live with this incredible pain for all your life."

Why would it be wrong to sue for emotional reasons in this case?

A kid is not a dog, and if a drunk driver ran over my Child he would be in jail, deservingly.. and yes it would be wrong to attempt to profit off your childs death.

[Groundtotem]

A kid is not a dog, and if a drunk driver ran over my Child he would be in jail, deservingly.. and yes it would be wrong to attempt to profit off your childs death.

It's just turned up a couple of notches, besides for some people pets are their kids.

[blackwatersix]

It's just turned up a couple of notches, besides for some people pets are their kids.

That couple of notches is the difference between being just and extreme.. Thankfully, the law states that pets can't be your kids, I just hope that the courts don't grant them their petition so as not to set a nasty precedent.

[S.L.I.G]

It's just turned up a couple of notches, besides for some people pets are their kids.

For some pathetic individuals, their pets may be the only emotional contact they have left. Nonetheless, that does not make their lives as important as another humans life in the eyes of society, or law.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

If he pays them a cent, then the money should be monitored. I want to know what they do with it.

How much would you bet that those "emotionally scarred" owners buy a new TV with the money? Or something; anything that's not actually related to their "loss."

They're just rather slow of mind, and it's taken them this long to figure out that they have an opportunity to soak someone for money and grab the piece of the pie. Has nothing to do with emotional damage.

[boofhead]

Money doesn't repair grief. That's just gold digging. The criminal gets time in prison for DUI and dangerous driving causing death or manslaughter.