World Rabies Day Expanding to 120 Countries Recalled Iams Cat Food Sold in Other States American Humane Names New President P&G Issues Limited Cat Food Recall in Colorado Seasons Natural to Introduce Climate-Specific Dog Food

Massachusetts May Allow Non-Economic Damages for Pet Loss

Damages for the malicious injury to pets would be allowed under Massachusetts House Bill 1250, legislation first introduced in 2009 and set to be heard Thursday, Jan. 28.

HB 1250, sponsored by Rep. James Arciero, D-Middlesex, adds to current law the option for non-economic damages in lawsuits alleging the malicious injury or killing of a pet. As written, the bill says such damages may include emotional distress and loss of companionship.

The bill leaves much discretion, according to the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC). Though two alternative damages are listed, other non-economic damages are possible, PIJAC said.

In addition, PIJAC said such damages are not determined by monetary loss, and juries often have discretion in making an award.

PIJAC opposes legislation that would grant non-economic damages to pet owners, saying such measures can subject breeders, pet product manufacturers, retailers and veterinarians to excessive claims and raise the cost of companion animals for the public.

A hearing on the bill is scheduled for 1 p.m. Jan. 28 before the Joint Judiciary Committee, Room A-1 in the state Capitol in Boston.

 Give us your opinion on
Massachusetts May Allow Non-Economic Damages for Pet Loss

Industry Professional Site: Comments from non-industry professionals will be removed.

While it seems like a good idea an a logical idea from first look, it would be fundamentally unfair and against most peoples good conscience if my mother was driving my dog to the vet and they were somehow maliciously both killed; I can sue for the emotion distress for the loss of my dog, but not my Mother. Like many people, I too see all 4 of my pets as members of my family - and their loss would be devastating - but the fact is they are a piece of property, bought sold and traded freely. They entrust us with their care and protection, and sometimes are not able to defend themselves. Criminal charges on a perpetrator causing malicious or intentional injuries are much more valuable then a dollar value recovery. Kim, Dallas, TX Posted: 1/29/2010 7:45:20 AM I am an animal chaplain and author of "Good Grief: Finding Peace After Pet Loss," and the main reason I wrote the book and do the work I do to comfort pet lovers who've lost precious animal companions is because our society has dismissed our feelings as frivolous. Would anyone dream of saying, "Oh, sorry you lost your child. It's a good thing you can adopt a new one!"? Never. Yet, they seldom hesitate to dole out that insensitive advice to a grieving pet parent. Watching shows such as "The People's Court" and seeing the judge able only to award damages equal to the cost of the "property" lost (i.e., the furry or feathered family member) makes my heart ache. I would be fully in favor of legislation supporting one's right to be awarded damages for the emotional cost of pet loss due to another's negligence or outright cruelty. Yes, some will seek to abuse the situation, but there are certainly ways to tell who is sincerely pained and who are sincerely pains in the courtroom. A judge will use his/her discretion to determine the amount of any awards. It's better that a few sneaky people receive a little more compensation than they actually deserve than to have the status quo continue, with people whose lives have truly been irreparably damaged by pet loss unable to receive any compensation for their own pain and suffering, as well as their pet's. Sid Korpi, Minneapolis, MN Posted: 1/28/2010 1:37:13 PM