Peter Friedman
Lawyer
Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity
A new breed of lawyers
As the New
York Times reported two years ago, a couple in New York City rescued three pigeons in Central Park and gave them a home in their apartment for years. When the building went co-op, however, the new landlords sued to evict the couple under a city ordinance outlawing chickens, cows, “or any pigeon except Antwerp or homing pigeons.” Maddy Tarnofsky, a new breed of lawyer, came to their rescue. First, she wondered, how could the landlord prove the pet birds weren’t Antwerp or homing pigeons? He couldn’t; there is no biological difference between Antwerp pigeons or any other pigeons, and, a veterinarian testified, the birds could likely be trained to home as well. The court dismissed the eviction proceeding.
As the Times goes on to explain, the growing field of animal law is not without its critics: “Many veterinarians, for example, fear that pet lawyers could become the animal-world equivalent of medical malpractice lawyers, reaping large juryawards and contributing to a rise in malpractice insurance costs. The American Veterinary Medical Association formed a task force on animal law last year and came out squarely against redefining the legal status of pets.”
Many animal law lawyers, however, want to distinguish themselves from animal rights advocates: “they are concerned primarily with getting the legal system to acknowledge that animals have an intrinsic value beyond mere property, because of the bond between pets and their owners.”
Not that animal rights advocates are anything to fear.
ADDENDUM: As Stefani points out in the comments, Christopher Green had demonstrated in his groundbreaking study, “The Future of Veterinary Malpractice Liability” (pdf), the fears manifested in the American Veterinary Medical Association’s opposition to redefining a pet as something more than the equivalent of a chair are baseless. I’m not surprised. Playing to the public’s fears of personal injury lawyers is an old and baseless trick.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
The AVMA’s argument is basically a deliberate lie.
Currently, vets pay an average of $300 a year for liability coverage in excess of $1 million.
As Christopher Green showed in his groundbreaking study, “The Future of Veterinary Malpractice Liability . . . ” (see in the paper, section entitled “The False Premise of the Liability Insurance Argument”), “the assertion that veterinary costs and prices will rise as a result of increased compensation is commonly made and accepted without any mathematical verification.” In fact, he goes on to show, a company that provides veterinary liability insurance (ABD insurance) conducted an analysis that showed allowing emotional damages up to (and capped at) $25,000 would result in a pass through increase to the client (if all rising liability costs were directly passed on) of less than 13 cents per year.
Would you notice 13 cents?
Even a 10-fold increase in liability insurance premiums would result in ONLY an increase to the consumer (if the entire cost were passed on) of 52 cents a year.
Would you pay 13 cents a year — or even 52 cents a year — to have standing to sue if the veterinarian killed your pet through negligence?
Negligence that is PROVEN in a court of law where a jury agrees?
I sure would.
The other truth (covered in the document) is that State Boards of Veterinary Medicine — tasked to monitor the industry — rarely do anything.
It is an industry arrogant from its lack of accountability, and entirely without regulation. Rife with malpractitioners injuring and killing victims who cannot speak.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Oh, here’s the link to Green’s eye-opening study:
http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/vol10_p163.pdf
September 30th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Oh yes, veterinarians, one of only three professions with both the honorable title of doctor and the ability to write a prescription to fill at your local pharmacy. (those that hold DEA license, of course).
The one profession that derives income solely via the intrinsic value of animals and human-pet bond, yet benefits exclusively by the legal property status of animals.
Unfortunately, this causes great harm to humans, when all goes awry, with lack of governmental resources, legal recourse, and the close of ranks among the unethical and willing silence of the moral within the profession.
It is my opinion that society and economics will drive the change to recognize the true status of companion animals.
November 5th, 2008 at 10:10 am
The topic is quite curious, i must say