OT/MISC Vermont Supreme Court To Determine What A Dog's Love Is Worth

Vermont Supreme Court To Determine What A Dog's Love Is Worth

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont's highest court is being asked to decide what a dog's love is worth.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday was to hear a case that began in July 2003, when Denis and Sarah Scheele, who were visiting relatives, let their mixed-breed dog wander into Lewis Dustin's yard and he fatally shot it.

Now the Scheeles are asking the court to carve out a new legal doctrine that a dog's owners can sue for emotional distress and loss of companionship, just like parents can when they lose children.

"We're still working toward having the courts recognizing the true value of companion animals. They're members of the family, not mere property," Sarah Scheele, 58, said from her home in Annapolis, Md., on Wednesday before flying north for the court hearing.

Dustin's lawyer, David Blythe, said Dustin never intended to kill the Scheeles' dog, Shadow, and "has always regretted that it happened." He said Dustin fired an air pellet rifle at the dog in hopes of scaring it off the lawn of his home in Northfield, a community of about 6,000 residents just south of Montpelier in the heart of the state's Green Mountains.

The shot Dustin fired penetrated the dog's chest and severed an aorta, and the dog died on the way to a veterinarian's office.

Dustin, 76, has said he was aiming at the dog's rear end. He did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Wednesday.

He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of animal cruelty and was given a year probation. He also was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and pay $4,000 in restitution to the Scheeles.

But the Scheeles weren't done. Sarah Scheele gave up her work as a meeting planner and has devoted her time since the dog's death to advocating for animal welfare and caring for the six special-needs dogs – most of them abused in the past – the couple has adopted in recent years. Denis Scheele, 50, continues to work as a plumber.

The Scheeles filed a civil suit against Dustin, pressing their claim that Shadow was more than a piece of property and that they could not be compensated just with reimbursement of what they paid to adopt him from an animal shelter, the veterinary bill that resulted from the shooting and the cost of his cremation.

Blythe, who owns a poodle and a maltipoo, said he would be very angry if someone shot one of his dogs. But he argued that the Scheeles aren't entitled to the legal remedy they're seeking.

Historically, laws across the country have limited sharply the ability of plaintiffs to collect damages for emotional loss. A parent can sue for emotional damage from the loss of a child, but a grandparent cannot for the loss of a grandchild under Vermont law, Blythe said.

"If the court carved out this exception in the common law, it would put pet owners in a position that grandparents are not in terms of recovering emotional-distress damages," Blythe said.

The court earlier this year ruled against a plaintiff seeking to collect for emotional distress when a cat's death resulted from a veterinarian's medication error.

One of the Scheeles' lawyers, Heidi Groff, said this case is different because Dustin acted with intent and malice when he shot Shadow.

"All previous (Vermont) cases that have presented this issue have involved negligence," Groff said, "and we have something that we think is a great deal more serious than that."

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.

On a Web site devoted to Shadow's memory, they wrote, "Every day without you running and playing and cuddling with us is more difficult than the day before. The loss of your presence in our every moment is unbelievably painful. Not a moment passes that you are not in our thoughts, our hearts and our prayers."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/17/vermont-supreme-court-to-_n_395402.html

let their mixed-breed dog wander into Lewis Dustin's yard and he fatally shot it.

advocating for animal welfare

The Scheeles are particularly devoted pet owners. They feed their dogs human food

If they really loved their dog, if they really gave proper care to their dog, they would never, ever let it wander onto someone else's property.

Has this crazy woman never heard of a leash? Does this idiot know that human food is the worst possible thing a dog could eat?

I feel for the dog. The owners are the ones who should have been shot.

A dog is indeed a companion and beloved, irreplaceable member of the family. They are not however children. Any parent could tell you there is a distinction.This seems like an unfortunate situation. The dogs owners are responsible ultimatly for the welfare of their dog. The dog is their responsibility and they allowed him to wander into another's property.

The property owner in my opinion used poor judgement(but not wrong IMO)Sounds like this was a dog unfamiliar to him. His intentions were not to kill the animal. He has apologized, been convicted, served his time probation and community service hours, paid the fine.

These people are out for blood. I would feel differently if this had been the intentional murder of an animal for no good reason and the perpetrator killed the animal on the animals owners property. Then I too, would be "out for blood" so to speak, if it were my dog. That clearly is not the case here.

MamaDel

Sounds more like "deep pocket" syndrome. Lewis Dustin probably has pockets.

Accidents happen. Dustin claimed no animosity. (Un)lucky shot.

Must be a quiet day in Montpelier. Not much to do otherwise.

Joe

The courts have always resisted assigning anything other the actual costs involved involved with losing an animal.

It is a -very- dangerous and slippery slope to equate an animal's value with that of a human.

Animals are property, humans are not. Thus the historical difference in recovering damages.

I like most dogs a lot more than I like most people. That said, I recently gave fair warning to a neighbor that I would shoot his dogs on sight next time I find them on my property. His three dogs run loose as a pack and attacked my dog on my property while I was walking with him. My dog kicked their asses and chased them off but there's no excuse for that. If I kill some dogs it's the irresponsible owner I'll be pissed at. Sounds to me Mr. Dustin was quick on the trigger but within reasonable rights. Might not have been the first time stray dogs were running his place.

edited to add: Just re-read the full article and see it was an air rifle used to shoot the dog. Forget the 'quick on the trigger' part. Fire at will.

The real question here is what kind of monster would shoot at a dog at all unless that dog was attacking.

It's high time the courts realized that pets are NOT property. The current laws don't even make sense - we outlaw animal abuse and neglect because we understand that they are creatures who feel emotion and suffer fear, pain, hopelessness and despair and we do not believe it is right to put an animal through that. If we consider an animal to be legally the equivalent of a lamp, why would we do that?

We already know that we interact on an emotional level with them, we bond, we worry about their welfare, if we're any kind of decent human being we put their needs above our own (just as we do for our children) so in what sick world does it make sense to say we shouldn't be compensated for the pain we feel when someone's act, negligent or intentional, takes that animal away from us?

The guy should have been sent to jail for years. There is no justification whatsoever for his cruelty. If there is any justice at all, this couple WILL be awarded SIGNIFICANT financial compensation for their loss. It won't bring their dog back, but it might get through the heads of people like this criminal that the can't kill animals just because they find their presence to be momentarily inconvenient or annoying.

- deleted -

Dogs can and do sometimes escape the confines of their property. I don't think the first action of a neighbor should be to shoot the dog unless they are being threatened or their own pets are being attacked. We have to little bichons and a fenced in yard. We're very careful to never let them outside our fence. They have in the last 5 years accidentally got out about 4 times. One was yesterday. The gate that normally snaps shut and locks behind me didn't because of the cold weather. It looked closed but it didn't lock. Let the dogs out and when they didn't come back to the door I found they had escaped the yard. Good thing it was freezing out because they took a little romp and were happy to come back in the yard and into the house. They never left our property but if they had and someone shot them I would be devestated.

If a neighbor lets their dogs wander at will knowingly and they are attacking my chickens or something then I'd give a warning to the neighbor then I'd have to defend my own animals and do something. I don't think I could shoot a dog. I'd probably call the law first and let them issue a warning or fine and go from there.

Ditto what Loon said.

I hesitate to see this ruling go in favor of the value of the emotional aspect of the dog because in effect it diminishes the value of people's lives.

Having said that, if something happened to my new little micro-chihuahua, Phoebe, I'd be truly broken hearted. I have gotten very attached to this little lovepuddle in short time, and she to me.

FLF

.

Shooting Star said:

Vermont Supreme Court To Determine What A Dog's Love Is Worth

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont's highest court is being asked to decide what a dog's love is worth.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday was to hear a case that began in July 2003, when Denis and Sarah Scheele, who were visiting relatives, let their mixed-breed dog wander into Lewis Dustin's yard and he fatally shot it.

Now the Scheeles are asking the court to carve out a new legal doctrine that a dog's owners can sue for emotional distress and loss of companionship, just like parents can when they lose children.

"We're still working toward having the courts recognizing the true value of companion animals. They're members of the family, not mere property," Sarah Scheele, 58, said from her home in Annapolis, Md., on Wednesday before flying north for the court hearing.

Dustin's lawyer, David Blythe, said Dustin never intended to kill the Scheeles' dog, Shadow, and "has always regretted that it happened." He said Dustin fired an air pellet rifle at the dog in hopes of scaring it off the lawn of his home in Northfield, a community of about 6,000 residents just south of Montpelier in the heart of the state's Green Mountains.

The shot Dustin fired penetrated the dog's chest and severed an aorta, and the dog died on the way to a veterinarian's office.

Dustin, 76, has said he was aiming at the dog's rear end. He did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Wednesday.

He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of animal cruelty and was given a year probation. He also was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and pay $4,000 in restitution to the Scheeles.

But the Scheeles weren't done. Sarah Scheele gave up her work as a meeting planner and has devoted her time since the dog's death to advocating for animal welfare and caring for the six special-needs dogs – most of them abused in the past – the couple has adopted in recent years. Denis Scheele, 50, continues to work as a plumber.


On a Web site devoted to Shadow's memory, they wrote, "Every day without you running and playing and cuddling with us is more difficult than the day before. The loss of your presence in our every moment is unbelievably painful. Not a moment passes that you are not in our thoughts, our hearts and our prayers."

View attachment 73291

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/17/vermont-supreme-court-to-_n_395402.html

Click to expand...

I know Sarah personally. She is one of the most caring people I have ever met. She fosters dogs, cats, people (especially Navy midshipman) you name it, if it needs a home, it ends up at her house. Every year at Christmas time, my dogs have presents under the tree from her. She has been working on Shadow's law for years now. She has grieved horribly over the loss of her dog and I truly feel for her. Sarah was at a block party when the dog wandered in the neighbor's yard and the man shot him. She should have had control of her pet, but that man's actions were completely reprehensible. If it would have been me, and I would have had access to a weapon, I would probably be in jail now.
That said, I don't know what the answer is. Should animals have rights? Personally I am so biased, I could never be objective. It is difficult to nearly impossible for me to regard my animals as mere property, on the level of anything else I own.

1) The pet owner IS 100% responsible for the safety and security of their pet. JUST LIKE A PARENT IS FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

2) "People food" is NOT the "absolute worst thing" one can feed their dog. SOME people food certainly is, but like all people food, one has to exercise judgment.

3) Dogs are NOT "JUST PROPERTY." They are living, breathing, sentient creatures who love, feel emotions, and give our lives joy and companionship. ANYONE who doesn't believe that SHOULD NOT HAVE A DOG.

4) The man was 100% wrong to shoot the dog. He should get (IMO) 6 months in jail for reckless endangerment and discharge of a weapon (even though "just a pellet gun," it DID KILL, and if it killed the dog, it could certainly kill a person.

5) If ANYONE killed either of my dogs, they would be DEAD MEAT ABOUT 30 SECONDS LATER. And I mean that with all my heart and soul. NO ONE hurts my dogs, and that includes cops.

6) What is the companionship of my dogs worth?


MY LIFE

Amen, Dennis.

I don't give a damn what the "law" is, the bottom line is, you hurt or kill one of my furbabies - YOU. ARE. DEAD.

End of message.

I sympathize with anyone who loses a furbaby. I agree with SG that if anyone deliberately hurt one of mine, they'd be shorter by a head.

That's if it's deliberately-inflicted harm by a jerk.

In this case, the pet owners share blame. Part of being a responsible pet parent is watching over your pet. They let it wander loose, and get into someone else's property. That was stupid and grossly negligent.

I've got to go with the accused here. I love animals, my animals are my furbabies. But letting your pet wander is asking for huge trouble, especially dogs. The sweetest dog in the world can and will revert to its wild nature when other creatures trigger its prey drive. Waiting until it does to take action can have tragic consequences. There's just no way to know.

Since I don't have children playing in the yard and my cats are totally indoors, I can generally take the chance of going outside myself to assess the individual dog. Many will wag and come over for some pettins before being sternly told to go home. If they are aggressive on my own property, or if I catch them going after the horses or chickens, they WILL be shot. And that's a terrible shame, but the fault lies completely with the owners. They are responsible for keeping their pets under control and not allowing them to roam.

The owners in this case should never have allowed their dog to wander unsupervised. It was a terribly irresponsible thing to do, not only to others, but to the dog itself. Would they let a small child wander unsupervised? Putting a pellet into a wandering dog's backside is generally a nonlethal way to drive them off and teach them not to come back. It's a tragedy that an unlucky shot killed this dog, but the fact remains that it was roaming on someone else's property and that's the fault only of the owners. It could have been avoided if they'd supervised the dog properly.

"...The real question here is what kind of monster would shoot at a dog at all unless that dog was attacking. .."

I know lots of them. Keep your dog to home. I no longer have small children, but if I did, I would not hesitate an instant unless I knew the dog and knew he knew the kids.

Otherwise, dead dog in the garden.