A pet’s worth, according to our society

Representative Callahan fights to change animals’ status

In this state, if your pet is maliciously injured or killed, you are roughly compensated about $25 for this if you’re lucky. Twenty five dollars – in fact no money – does little to soften the excruciating pain of losing your pet in that manner. It did little to ease the emotional toll it took on the Falmouth woman who found her beloved dog’s decapitated head on the roof of her car last year. Or last January, when a Monson man mutilated his roommate’s dog with a chainsaw because he saw the “devil in the dog’s eyes.”

Still, compensation, argue many, validates the severity of the crime – in addition to jail time.

Under our current structure, those who seek damages as victims to such a crime can only hope for “fair market replacement value of the animal.” If your dog was “worth” a few hundred dollars, you may get that. But if your cat came from a shelter, you may just about receive the reimbursement fee to get another one.

To anyone who loves animals, this is an outright atrocity. These animal lovers include Jennifer Callahan, state representative, 18^th Worcester district. To her, it should be understood that a family pet is worth far more than an appliance to a family. “Many people recognize that pets are worth much more to us than $25,” says Callahan. “Current Massachusetts law puts family pets in a class that is shared with other personal property such as toasters and washing machines.”

She gave testimony at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee on March 11, and Callahan is pushing to pass H. 3865, which was filed for the first time during the 2007-2008 legislative sessions. If House 3865, “an act relative to damages for the malicious injury to pets” passes, individuals would be allowed to seek compensation for emotional distress and loss of companionship of their pet. “In incidents of malicious harm in which pets are shot, stabbed, smothered, stomped, poisoned, beaten and burned,” says Callahan, “psychologists inform us that the owners undergo significant mental distress. The courts currently compensate for emotional distress in many other circumstances, and it would be appropriate in these cases as well.”

Both the House and Senate Chairman have filed an extension on the bill for further analysis before the committee votes on how the bill should proceed, which is a positive sign, according to Callahan. If reported favorably, it’ll head through the legislative process before coming to vote by the members of the House Floor.

At the March hearing, Callahan gave testimony that included cases that make most shudder. “I wanted the committee to hear that we were not talking about accidentally running over your neighbor’s dog,” she says. “We are talking about people setting animals on fire, decapitating a dog’s head or dismembering a dog with a chainsaw. Many members of the committee were quite empathetic and supportive of the need to better address cruelty status in terms of penalties and rights of victim pet owners.”

A disturbing article prompted Callahan to take action in pushing this bill. “It was about a couple visiting in Vermont whose beloved dog was fatally shot after wandering into a neighbor’s property,” says Callahan. “The bereaved couple sued for both damages and for compensation for their emotional distress and loss of companionship. The Vermont judge presiding over the case ruled that there is no provision in Vermont law that would allow them to recover damages for the loss of companionship or for emotional distress.

“Reading this case reminded me of an incident that happened when I was a child with our family pug, Sir Winston Churchill Winnie. My other had taken all six kids to the beach on Cape Cod and my father remained home to watch over our farm and pets. Winnie had wandered into a neighboring yard and was playing with that neighbor’s dog’s bowl when the owner came out and fired shots at Winnie with a BB gun. My father had to rush the pug to the vet for emergency surgery and blood transfusions. When my father told us what had transpired and we came home we were shocked to see Winnie shaven and sutured. I still recall the incredible emotional distress we were under.”

After hearing many cases like this one, Callahan came to the conclusion that there was a need to codify the ability to sue for emotional distress and loss of companionship in Massachusetts statute. It’s no surprise that pet owners identify with the idea that their animals are an intricate part of the family. And she is pleased to find little opposition to the bill thus far. “The only opposing testimony in the public hearing,” she says, “was delivered by two individual dog breeders who view dogs and other domestic animals as personal property because they are in the business of selling them commercially for a profit. Perhaps some breeders who have commercial interests would in fact like to not have pets elevated to a status of being more than personal property because it may in fact diminish their market potential. However, this view is in stark contrast to the majority of pet owners nationwide.”

A national survey showed that 95 percent of pet owners consider their pets as family members. In fact, stresses Callahan, when forced to make a relationship decision, further studies indicate that 70 percent of people will choose their pet over a significant other during a dispute.

Many states, and Massachusetts is no exception, have laws dating back to an era when animals were primarily thought of as part of the farm machinery. The culture shift has sped far beyond what these law books reflect. Direct violence against animals is becoming less and less tolerated by society. It’s apparent in the growing number of front page news stories on the subject, including the infamous Michael Vick dog fighting case. This year, the Legislature is considering a major overhaul in terms of animal care, protection and enforcement laws. Callahan stresses that many of these changes are long overdue, and should “help bring Massachusetts into the 21^st century with regard to how most families in American society view their animals.”

The trend is not unique, and other states are showing similar strides. In the absence of laws, in some circumstances, several courts have taken matters into their own hands. In Washington, the court of appeals created a new tort allowing individuals to seek monetary consideration for emotional distress damages after a family cat named Max was doused in gasoline and burned. In Oregon, a jury gave $56,000 in damages; $6,000 specifically for emotional distress, when a family dog named Grizz was intentionally run over several times in a neighbor dispute. Tennessee, in fact, was the first state in the country to define the value of up to $5,000 (much higher than “fair market value”). New York, California, Florida and Illinois are presently considering similar changes. 

While the root causes for someone having the capacity of causing such harm to a living creature vary, they are often tied to domestic violence, behavioral disorders and desensitization about the consequences of violence. There have been countless studies that show that serial killers often began their “career” in killing with torturing or killing small animals, including pets. Many perpetrators use the threat of harming a beloved pet as a form of control and intimidation, proving further what pets mean to people. Up to 35 percent of victims in domestic violence cases have said they refuse to seek assistance out of fear that their pet will be harmed or killed by an abuser.

“It is pretty apparent in today’s culture that pets are not viewed as chattel or personal property,” she continues. “They are most often viewed as sentient beings in which owners have a very strong bond, enduring relationship and emotional value for companionship. I believe that increased penalties always deter criminal behavior.”