pit bull mix attacks cat in my fenced back yard

[Taxing Matters]

Your poor cat! I would have shot that dog on the spot but that's probably not the correct thing to do.

Doing that may indeed land you in a spot of legal trouble in some states.

 

[quincy]

A few states are awarding damages for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Eekamouse, it actually is permitted in Texas to kill/shoot a dog (or coyote) that is attacking you, someone else, or your pet, under Texas Health and Safety Code, Title 10, Chapter 822 Regulation of Animals, section 822.013.

https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._health_and_safety_code_section_822.013

 

[Just Blue]

Your poor cat! I would have shot that dog on the spot but that's probably not the correct thing to do.

IMO it would be the right thing to do...the dog is a menace.

 

[quincy]

To determine the value of a companion animal, more than just the original cost of the animal is considered. The Animal Law Center at MSU outlines nicely some of the factors considered.

Following is a link to a discussion of these factors (see part III), and a link to the Texas case Bueckner v. Hamel, where both actual damages and punitive damages were awarded - with a nod toward companion animals having value beyond the fair market value of property. It is, however, a case from 1994, before the Texas Supreme Court weighed in on companion animals.

https://www.animallaw.info/article/determining-value-companion-animals-wrongful-harm-or-death-claims-survey-us-decisions-and

Bueckner: https://www.animallaw.info/case/bueckner-v-hamel

 

[lawdude888]

Your cat survived the dog attack, correct? If your cat survived, “fair market value” is not a consideration. Fair market value is used when determining the replacement costs of property.

Yes, the cat survived. He will take months to heal and probably walk with a limp forever.

 

[lawdude888]

I am planning on filing the civil suit today. I have pictures and lots of documentation. If I have even a 50 percent chance of being reimbursed for vet bills, I would like to try.

From the answers I read here, it seems quincy thinks there is a chance I may be reimbursed for full price of vet bills and taxingmatters has concluded I will only be able to get fair market value. Am I understanding this correctly?

Additionally, either the homeowner or the dog owner told the police officer they would pay for my vet bills. Is there any kind of oral contract here that can be enforced?

I will update everyone here on what happens.

 

[Zigner]

Additionally, either the homeowner or the dog owner told the police officer they would pay for my vet bills. Is there any kind of oral contract here that can be enforced?

Was their promise to pay made before or after you authorized the treatment? If it was made before, did you rely on that promise when you chose to authorize the treatment, or would you have done it regardless of their promise to pay?

What I'm getting at is that, if there is no legal duty for them to pay, then their "promise" alone doesn't change that. However, if you relied on that promise when making your choice to have the cat treated, then you (may) have grounds based on detrimental reliance.

 

[zddoodah]

From the answers I read here, it seems . . . taxingmatters has concluded I will only be able to get fair market value. Am I understanding this correctly?

This may seem like an insignificant distinction, but "Taxing Matters" merely cited and quoted Texas case law that held that pets are property and that recovery should be limited to fair market value (which is the point that I made by implication and without citation to or discussion of case law). However, this is a small claims matter, and it's often the case that anything goes in small claims court. Do you have "even a 50 percent chance" of winning in small claims court? Probably not, but no one here can intelligently rule out the possibility.

Additionally, either the homeowner or the dog owner told the police officer they would pay for my vet bills. Is there any kind of oral contract here that can be enforced?

No. A contract is a promise (or mutual promises) supported by consideration. Whichever individual made this alleged statement received no consideration in exchange for the alleged promise to pay, so it's not enforceable.

 

[Taxing Matters]

From the answers I read here, it seems quincy thinks there is a chance I may be reimbursed for full price of vet bills and taxingmatters has concluded I will only be able to get fair market value. Am I understanding this correctly?

If the court properly applies the Strickland decision then you are limited to recovering only the fair market value of your pet or for any particular economic value your pet had. In small claims court without lawyers participating its unlikely that either side will make the court aware of the Strickland decision so it may well come down to how well the judge hearing the case knows that particular point of law. Small claims courts in some states are more rough justice places than venues where the law is strictly applied, so you might get something more than just the nominal value of your pet here. Not knowing the judge that will hear your case I'd not be willing to place a bet on the outcome either way.

Additionally, either the homeowner or the dog owner told the police officer they would pay for my vet bills. Is there any kind of oral contract here that can be enforced?

As was pointed out earlier, there is no contract here. Perhaps you could try to make an argument that you reasonably relied on the homeowner's promise when getting the vet services done, though in a regular court that might be a tough sell. It might also be useful as some kind of implicit acknowledgement of negligence. It's certainly worth mentioning what he told you in the small claims trial anyway.

 

[lawdude888]

Thanks everyone so much for your responses and explaining things in layman's terms. I feel an uphill battle, but will proceed just based on the principle of the matter.

I will advise here no matter the outcome.

Cheers,

 

[quincy]

I am planning on filing the civil suit today. I have pictures and lots of documentation. If I have even a 50 percent chance of being reimbursed for vet bills, I would like to try.

From the answers I read here, it seems quincy thinks there is a chance I may be reimbursed for full price of vet bills and taxingmatters has concluded I will only be able to get fair market value. Am I understanding this correctly?

Additionally, either the homeowner or the dog owner told the police officer they would pay for my vet bills. Is there any kind of oral contract here that can be enforced?

I will update everyone here on what happens.

You correctly read Taxing Matter’s and my assessments of your chances of succeeding in a small claims action. I believe you have a better than even chance of having the court award damages in the amount of veterinarian expenses.

The type of dog that attacked your cat is, according to many (most?) insurance companies, a dangerous breed. It should not have been running loose. It trespassed on your property, it damaged your property, you witnessed the attack. These are all factors that can work in your favor, especially if the dog owner has been cited before and/or if the dog was not properly registered.

There was a discussion on this forum years ago about a case in New York where a “rogue” small claims court judge awarded a dog owner a significant sum of money against a defendant who had killed the dog. The decision was contrary to State law at the time that said companion animals were property. There was no appeal to the decision.

If I can locate the thread I will post it because several good points were made by “You Are Guilty” (a New York attorney) about small claims court judges.

I will be interested in hearing how you fare, lawdude888. It is possible that the dog owner, upon receipt of a summons and complaint, will decide to settle rather than going to court. I hope that is the case. I am sorry that your cat was so severely injured.

Good luck.

 

[Just Blue]

Thanks everyone so much for your responses and explaining things in layman's terms. I feel an uphill battle, but will proceed just based on the principle of the matter.

I will advise here no matter the outcome.

Cheers,

Good luck, lawdude888...I hope you win.

 

[Taxing Matters]

You correctly read Taxing Matter’s and my assessments of your chances of succeeding in a small claims action. I believe you have a better than even chance of having the court award damages in the amount of veterinarian expenses.

In small claims court the OP might get a judgment for all the vet bills, but I wouldn't put greater than even odds on that. Given the TX case law and the fact that you don't know what judge the OP will get, I'm curious how you arrive at your optimistic assessment. If the judge does know the Texas case law and the Strickland decision the judge should not award that amount of damages. And even if the OP wins that much at the trial court, the defendant can appeal it to county court where the odds will be greater that the judge actually knows the law. I'm not saying it's not worth trying, even at low odds you sometimes hit the jackpot, but I'm not certainly as optimistic as you because the case law is clearly against the OP.

As for my assessment, the OP was not correct to say that I believe there is no chance he/she will get more than the FMV, as I explained in my post #24. If the court applies the case law, then the OP will be limited to that. But in small claims there is a chance the judge might not know the case and simply goes for a result he or she thinks is fair -- the rough justice I referred to earlier.

The type of dog that attacked your cat is, according to many (most?) insurance companies, a dangerous breed. It should not have been running loose. It trespassed on your property, it damaged your property, you witnessed the attack. These are all factors that can work in your favor, especially if the dog owner has been cited before and/or if the dog was not properly registered.

Those are factors that help establish negligence. I don't think that will be the problem. The problem is the Texas case law that caps damages.

There was a discussion on this forum years ago about a case in New York where a “rogue” small claims court judge awarded a dog owner a significant sum of money against a defendant who had killed the dog. The decision was contrary to State law at the time that said companion animals were property. There was no appeal to the decision.

That's always a possibility. The small claims court might award a favorable judgement and the defendant might not appeal. However, small claims courts vary significantly from one state to another. Some states the judges adhere pretty closely to the law where in others they may be more apt to do rough justice and might not follow the law. You're more likely to find the latter in states where appeals from small claims are not permitted. And it's worth noting that Texas is not quite the liberal state that NY is, and thus the judges will tend to be more conservative as well. As a result, I'd expect them to more likely to adhere to the long standing rule in property law that they learned in law school -- so even if they are not aware of the Strickland decision they might still end up applying the correct rule anyway.

It is possible that the dog owner, upon receipt of a summons and complaint, will decide to settle rather than going to court.

That too is a possibility, and perhaps the best choice to get a good chunk of those vet bill reimbursed. Hopefully the homeowner will decide to do the right thing and cover those bills.

 

[quincy]

I am by nature an optimist.

I think a settlement can be reached with the dog owner before the court has to decide the issue.