United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Supreme Court must decide the value of a dog
Source:
ajc
URL Source: http://www.myajc.com/news/news/loca ... cide-the-value-of-a-dog/np7Kj/
Published: Jan 18, 2016
Author: Bill Rankin
Post Date: 2016-01-19 09:57:16 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 645
Comments: 11
Lola, a mixed-breed dachshund that died in 2013, was adopted by the Monyak family from a dog rescue group. Lola was a little hound of questionable pedigree who slept like a human, her head on the pillow and her body under the covers. She was jealous of laptop computers, because she was a laptop dog. The mixed-breed dachshund was 8 years old when she died of renal failure. Lola’s owners allege that a popular Atlanta dog kennel gave Lola medication she wasn’t supposed to receive, ultimately leading to her death. The owners have sued, and that’s why this sad case with its very thorny question will come before the state’s highest court on Tuesday. Elizabeth Monyak poses for a photo with her husband Robert Monyak as she holds a photo of their dog Lola at their home in Atlanta on Saturday. What is the value of a dog? Barking Hound Village kennel denies that it is responsible for Lola’s death. And in filings before the Georgia Supreme Court, the kennel argues that pets are property and plaintiffs may only recover the market value of their property before it was destroyed. For this reason, Elizabeth and Bob Monyak should be barred from receiving damages for any alleged negligence that might have caused Lola’s death, the kennel said. The Monyaks paid nothing for Lola when they rescued her from a shelter and she had no market value at the time of her death. In essence, the kennel says, Lola was a worthless piece of property. The Monyaks say they spent $67,000 on veterinary and related expenses, including regular dialysis treatments, trying to keep their dog alive, and their suit seeks to recover that sum. But the Monyaks also say Lola’s market value isn’t the point. “Their position is that a dog is like a toaster,” Elizabeth Monyak said. “When you break it, you throw it away and get a new one. A dog is indeed property under the law, but it’s a different kind of property.” Both Monyak and her husband are attorneys. She works for the state attorney general’s office. He specializes in defending medical malpractice and product liability lawsuits and will argue Lola’s case before the justices on Tuesday. Barking Hound Village, with five locations in metro Atlanta, was founded by David York, a pioneer in the upscale doggie daycare and boarding business. Joel McKie, the company’s lawyer, said Barking Hound Village cares deeply about dogs entrusted to its care and has procedural safeguards to ensure they are safe and happy during their stay. “We are certainly sympathetic to the (Monyaks) for the loss of their beloved dog, Lola,” McKie said. “However, (Barking Hound Village) did nothing to cause or contribute to the dog’s renal failure.” The case has attracted national attention, with veterinary and kennel organizations asking the state high court to adopt Barking Hound Village’s legal position. If juries are allowed to consider a lost pet’s sentimental value and medical expenses paid by its owners, the costs for kennels and veterinary care will rise, groups such as the American Kennel Club, the Cat Fanciers’ Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief. “Concerns over expanded liability may cause some services, such as free clinics for spaying and neutering, to close,” the groups said. “Shelters, rescues and other services may no longer afford to take in dogs and other pets. … Fewer people will get pets, leaving more pets abandoned in shelters to die.” The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed its own brief in support of the Monyaks’ position. It cited industry studies showing U.S. pet owners spent a collective $58 billion on their animals in 2014, including $4.8 billion on pet grooming and boarding. “It is hypocritical for these businesses, including (Barking Hound Village), to exploit the value of the human-companion bond, while simultaneously arguing that the same should be unrecoverable when that bond is wrongfully — and even intentionally — severed,” the defense fund said. Michael Wells, a University of Georgia law school professor specializing in tort and insurance law, said he believes pet dogs have value beyond their market value. The same goes for other properties, like a treasured family photo. “I assume (the Monyaks) paid a substantial amount of money to the kennel to take care of their dog,” Wells said. “To then say the dog has no market value doesn’t seem to square with the commitment the kennel made and the money it made from the transaction itself.” In 2005, the Monyaks had a Labrador retriever named Callie. But their oldest daughter, Suzanne, then 10, wanted a dog of her own. Elizabeth Monyak said she finally agreed, but only if they adopted a relatively mature, smaller dog. Suzanne found Lola, then 2 years old, on a pet finder website and the family adopted her from the Small Dog Rescue and Humane Society in front of a Sandy Springs pet store. In 2012, the Monyaks decided to take their three children on a family vacation to France and boarded Lola and Callie in “The Inn,” a Barking Hound Village kennel near the intersection of Piedmont Road and I-85. At that time, Callie had been prescribed Rimadyl, an anti-inflammatory for arthritis. It is the Monyaks’ contention that the kennel incorrectly gave the Rimadyl to Lola, instead of to Callie, during the time they were boarded there. In court motions, the Monyaks allege that Barking Hound Village knew that a medication error had occurred during Lola’s stay, and the kennel then covered it up by destroying evidence and withholding critical information. Barking Hound Village denies any wrongdoing and said when the Monyaks picked up their dogs on June 7, 2012, both Lola and Callie appeared to be normal. “(T)here is no competent evidence that the dachshund was ever incorrectly medicated,” the kennel said in a court filing. The family immediately noticed something was wrong with Lola, Elizabeth Monyak said. Normally a voracious eater, she had little appetite. Lola then began trembling, vomiting and experiencing severe pain. Within days, Lola’s vet determined the dachshund was suffering from acute kidney failure, with the likely culprit being overdoses of Rimadyl. The vet also told the Monyaks he had recently received a phone call from someone at Barking Hound Village, who told him that the prescription for Lola had run out of pills, court filings say. This was odd, the vet said, because he had not prescribed Lola any pills, except those for routine heart-worm medication. Ultimately, vets recommended that Lola be transferred to the University of Florida Small Animal Hospital because there was no facility in Georgia that could provide the necessary dialysis. The treatments were intermittently successful and Lola was able to return home for extended periods. “Her kidney was never fully repaired, but there were times when she was doing well,” Monyak said. In March 2013, the Florida clinic called with bad news: Lola’s kidney was failing again and no longer responding to treatment. Before the family could drive down and return Lola to her Atlanta home one last time, the clinic called to say she had died. in addition to recovering their expenses for Lola’s treatment, the Monyaks also want a Fulton County jury to consider evidence that demonstrates Lola’s value to their family. “She was a smart, fun dog that gave us a lot of enjoyment,” Monyak said. In court filings, Barking Hound Village’s lawyers contend there are court precedents dating back more than a century which say any recovery of damages for injured or lost animals should be decided by market value, not sentimental value. “The purchase price of the dachshund was zero dollars, the rescue dog never generated revenue and nothing occurred during the Monyaks’ ownership of the dog that would have increased her market value,” the company’s filing said. “The mixed-breed dachshund had no special training or unique characteristics other than that of ‘family dog.’” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#7. To: cranky (#0)
They're obviously insane. They're also shyster lawyers, looking for a big payout.
Why? Because they prefer a live dog to a pile of cash?
I think they just want the pile of cash.
Spending 67k on doggie medical bills to set up a lawsuit seems unlikely to me. They would have been better off buying 67,000 lottery tickets.
#11. To: cranky (#10)
They likely had a doggie healthcare plan.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest The Monyaks say they spent $67,000 on veterinary and related expenses, including regular dialysis treatments, trying to keep their dog alive, and their suit seeks to recover that sum. But the Monyaks also say Lola’s market value isn’t the point.
#8. To: TooConservative (#7)
They're obviously insane.
#9. To: cranky (#8)
#10. To: TooConservative (#9)
I think they just want the pile of cash.
Replies to Comment # 10. Spending 67k on doggie medical bills to set up a lawsuit seems unlikely to me.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]