Guard Dog

...Right. Understandable retort considering what the media portrays. The shock of being treated better there than in most places in Europe took a while for me to accept. Wasn't intended as voicing skepticism, more like... sure, they'll be genuinely friendly, nice and polite to you as long as you look and behave like someone belonging to their in-group. But I'm also pretty sure they'll treat you with considerably more... let's say, distance, if you're not that keen on the whole God business, or - heavens forbid - happen to be non-white, non-straight, and visibly a foreigner. I'm guessing you have never visited the places you are casting incorrect aspersions on. If you're ever in TN I'll buy you a drink and I don't care if you are non white, non christian, or non hetero. As Viktor Frankel wrote "There are only two races; the decent and the indecent." Anyone who behaves like the former will find friends wherever he goes no matter what he looks like.

Very true. The others are like a few small gnats biting at you when you've got a fleet of hostile Panzers rolling over into your trenches. Panzers repeatedly bleat out 'Beware the Gnats! Beware the Gnats! We're here to protect you from them!' as they continuously shell, push ever on, crushing everyone and everything in their path. Morons go running from gnats, and cheer the Panzers. Yeah... it's something like that... sorta

Wow Tale. I know the sun doesn't shine on the same dogs --- every day but you haven't seen a ray of light in a while.

Just doesn't register on my DGAF meter.

That sucks!

I don't know about that. Six teenage girls with you in a rowboat lost at sea with all the hardships that entails? After two days their complaining alone will make you wish you had the dog back!

Prediction: the next President of the United States will be a deeply flawed individual who really should not be entrusted to be in charge of a cleaning crew let alone the Executive Branch of the US Government and the US Military. No matter who wins, that is a true statement. Time to start stockpiling precious metals again... gold, silver, bullets.

Bah, few threads are still OT after page 3. Namutree hit the opposition argument pretty well. I just disagree. And to reiterate we are discussing actual damages. The plaintiff spent $67k to treat a dog worth nothing in the eyes of the law. But the value of the item should not be considered if the injured party spends more than the value to right the wrong. As I pointed out, if someone damaged my car and it cost $500 to fix and I spent the $500 it does not matter if my car was worth less than $500. If the plaintiff had not spent the money already and sued for the cost then the value of the dog becomes an issue. I think this case is a no-brainier. The money was spent, the negligence is not in dispute. Next case.

You shouldn't have too much trouble finding a foster group to accept them if such a donation is given. My sister has been involved with one that certainly would take them. Tis a shame you don't have anyone in your life that could/would take them. Hopefully you don't predecease your dogs. Hopefully you can trust your lawyer and your lawyer is resourceful enough to do what would need to be done. LOL. me too considering one of them is almost 11! But knowing me, if it happens in 10 years or 40 years odds are I'll have at least one dog when the end does come. I would sleep better knowing they will be cared for. As for the laywer, I don't like her much but I do trust her and her partners.

Well, I haven't left any money to my dogs but I have made provisions for them if I die in my will. My lawyer is to act as their agent and try to place them with a rescue group. If a group will take them they get a $10k donation from my insurance so long as they will not be boarded. Foster homes only. That's the best I could do for them. My brother and his family get everything else.

Sarcasm often does not translate well on a text forum. No "tone of voice" and all that. The rule of thumb Bruce if something sounds heartless or mean spirited it was probably meant to be sarcastic or dark humor.

is unlikely hurl and val would ever be on the same boat... 'cause val would no doubt refuse a berth on what is obviously a cia front meant to ship weapons, drugs and human slaves to _________, with the military-industrial complex using its control o' the media to camouflage hurl's ship o' fools from public view... but you would know all o' this if you would just read the Constitution. HA! Good Fun! Yep, it's true. It's all right there in Article 8. Go see for yourself!

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not What is the one lesson the Walking Dead has taught us? Your Tribe > Their Tribe!

I bet more than a few of you laughed when I subtitled this thread. You did didn't you? Who's laughing now???? Go Panthers!

My first wife was a volunteer in a dog & cat rescue group. We fostered a lot of dogs during the years we were together. We even sold our first house and bought another one out in an unincorporated part of Palm Beach County to make it easier to do that. When the rescue folded we had 15 dogs in our house. Four were ours, 11 were fosters with nowhere to go. I was leery about adopting them out without the legal protection of the rescue and I certainly was not going to take them to animal control. So we kept them. One of the dogs I have now Tommy, was one of those. The was just a puppy then. He was the only puppy, the rest were adults. When my wife and I divorced she took three with her and that left me with 12. As the years have passed they lived what I think and hope were happy lives. Most lived past age 14. One had cancer and I treated for as long and as well as veterinary science would allow to keep her comfortable. I sacrificed a lot of time an money on those mutts and can emphatically I do not regret one moment spent with them or one penny expended on their behalf. Except Tommy they have all passed on now. I remember them all with love and think about all of them often. I told you all that to tell you this. I consider myself something of an expert in dog behavior & psychology. I have read many books about it and I have my own experience. They are not people. They are not little furry humans. And to tell you the truth you are doing them and yourself a disservice if you think of them that way. They are dogs. They think dog thoughts and do dog things for dog reasons. They will never understand YOU. But YOU can learn to understand THEM. If I had to sacrifice one of my dogs to save a person, even one I didn't know, even one I hated, I would do it. I would hate myself afterwards but there would not be a moments hesitation. A dogs life certainly has value. Not just to itself but to all the other dogs and humans in interacts with. But in the universal scale it does not compare to the value of a humans life. I would continue on much better after the loss of a dog and a family of humans would after the loss of a parent or child.

I'd be curious to see where our three lawyers weigh in on this.

By your logic; if I stepped on some guy's tin can, and he spent $1,000,000,000 trying to fix it I'd have to pay for it all. It's not my fault this guy really loves THIS tin can. I owe him a tin can; not whatever money he wastes trying to fix it. Maybe there is no other tin can he's so attached to, maybe losing this can will leave a hole in his heart for life; I dunno. His feelings are his responsibility as are the money he spends because of it. No he would have to prove it cost $1M to fix the tin can then actually actually spend the $1M fixing it before he could sue for $1M. No one is entitled to damages on expenses not actually incurred. If you backed into my car and it cost me $500 to fix and I took you to court I'd have to prove that you did it and it cost $500 to fix. If my car was not worth $500 you would still have to pay the repair cost if I met the first two conditions. As I said had they put the dog to sleep they kennel would be on the hook for the cost of the euthanasia. That is the damage. The point I'm making is the dog is not a thing to which an arbitrary replacement cost can be assigned because there is no replacing them. Had the plaintiff not spent any money on the dogs care then I'd say they would not have had any case.

A) Some animal owners are in fact no more attached to their pet than some other standard object. B) Some people have very close attachments to random object. Don't project your standards onto everyone else. To some one out there, a chewed up piece of gum is worth dying for. There are people who see trash as important as family. C) An animal can qualify as an item. It seems to me that it's the relationship you'd want to be compensated for rather than the dog itself. Sorry, but property obligations are for the corporeal only. Anytime anyone forms a bond with something, whether it be a dog, or a chair, or a tv, or whatever; they expose themselves to be vulnerable. Whether you "care" about something cannot be controlled by the offending party and thus they are not responsible for it. If you love something; that's all on you. It's not the offender's fault you care. Your position is made even worse for you once the fact that "love" cannot be quantified. This is why you guys were just haphazardly throwing numbers around; guessing the monetary value of the bond between owner and pet. It's absurd. No we are not just throwing numbers. The damages are $67k. If it can be proven they really spent $67k to right a wrong done in negligence (again the negligence is not in dispute, only the value) and that the vet confirms the treatment was medically necessary and the dog had a reasonable chance of survival then the issue of damages become clear to me. Had they put the dog to sleep then the damages would be the cost of the euthanasia. About $200 in my experience. Someone who did not love the dog would not have pursued a treatment and therefore would not be entitled to damages. The relationship is something that cannot be compensated for. It is priceless (or worthless depending on your point of view) and it is relevant only in that it's value was such that the plaintiff incurred $67k in actual damage to preserve it. You are correct in that the love cannot be bought or have a value attached to it. That is why I would never agree to grant punitive damages for "pain & suffering" of "loss of companionship", etc. But if the defendant committed a wrong on the plaintiff in negligence then the plaintiff is entitled to recompense in actual damages rather than replacement value because the thing that was damaged cannot BE replaced.

After the Panthers finished beating the Islanders in Game 2 last night I watched the rest of the Giants/Dodgers game. SF was all discombobulated. Three errors? Really?

The TV argument does not hold water IMO. A TV is fungible item. It cannot be taught anything, it has no history. A 32" Sony is the same as another 32" Sony. A pet is not a fungible item. A dog for example at eight years of age has learned things. It has developed friendships and relationships that need the dogs presence to continue. And that are damaged when the presence is taken away. Replacing an 8 year old dog with another 8 year old dog does not repair anything. You don't have a relationship with the TV. As far as granting personhood to animals. that is a non-starter to me. It is certainly appropriate for the law to protect animals from abuse, neglect, inhumane or illegal harvesting, etc. But they are not people, cannot assert rights as people, cannot communicate information or desires as people. I figure the folks who want to give rights to animals see themselves as the executors to exercise those rights on behalf of the animals. In other words this is a cynical attempt to grab more power by those who favor a leftist ideology rather than a genuine attempt to do good for critters.

I've been following this case for a little while: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/04/12/how-much-is-a-pet-dog-worth-a-court-will-soon-decide/ This might end up being one of those turning point cases. Right now the law does not place any value on the lives of pets beyond their replacement cost or actual monetary value in the case of service animals. Obviously the public at large generally values pets as family members. Maybe not to the level of children, but certainly in the ballpark. The plaintiffs in the case went to great lengths to save their dog. Personally I think the total of $67k sounds suspicious. The most I've ever heard of or spent was a little over $11k over two years treating one of my dogs for cancer. But accept for the moment it's on the level and that is their actual damages due to the kennel's negligence. That the kennel WAS negligent is not in dispute. The dispute is if the plaintiff deserves to receive actual damages rather than replacement costs. In other words was Lola a "thing" of was she a family member? You see why this one is interesting? It could mean a change in the law. The law is slow to change, and it should be. It usually trails the mores of society by a generation or so. This might be where it catches up to the role pets play in our lives today. Now I am not saying animals have rights. They do not. The prerequisite to having a right is the ability to assert it. And I also son't think it would be appropriate to award punitive damages for pain & suffering or loss of future income etc. But if the plaintiff spent $67k to try to right a wrong done by another party, it only makes sense they should be "made whole". I do appreciate the irony of the kennel's legal argument though. They run a business that depends upon the value people place on the care and comfort of their pets and they are in court arguing those pet have no value. Very ironic. I am curious how this is handled in other countries. What do you guys think?

This thing is still going on? Huh. I figured if I stopped paying attention in might go away. Oh well. In other political news who didn't see this coming: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25555781/tim-tebow-is-being-targeted-to-run-for-retiring-us-congressmans-seat

Been very busy lately. Both at work, home, and a new (really an old that has renewed interest) business venture. On the personal front things are unsettled but really, aren't they always?

Good luck to you, Mrs. Enoch & the new little guy. Hopefully this will go a lot easier than last time! We're pulling for you.