Guest guest Posted December 24, 2002 Report Share Posted December 24, 2002 I don't know if you've heard about it on the news, but an 11- and 14-year-old broke into a neighbors' backyard, poured gasoline on the dog (named Lucky), and lit him on fire. The South Bay Veterinarian Society is caring for him, and the bill is running up to $10,000 at this point. People are donating to help the family pay for Lucky's treatment, and he seems to be recovering nicely. If you would like to add one more recipient to your holiday gift list, please consider making a donation on Lucky's behalf: http://www.sbvs.com/luckie_fund.htm (details for payment at bottom of the page). Colleen " Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. " ~Thomas Edison --------------------- " Don't do nothing because you can't do everything. Do Something. Anything. " ~Sasha " As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together. " ~Isaac Bashevis Singer " The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans anymore than black people were made for whites or women for men. " ~Alice Walker " Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. " ~Thomas Edison --------------------- Colleen Patrick-Goudreau Senior Content & Creative Director JustGive.org 1625 Clay Street, 7th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 phone (510) 238-5004 fax (510) 238-4809 colleen http://www.justgive.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2002 Report Share Posted December 24, 2002 why don't the guardians sue the kids (or their parents)? and how are they being punished? does anyone know? >Colleen Patrick-Goudreau <colleen >Colleen Patrick-Goudreau <colleen > >[sFBAVeg] Dog Abuse in South Bay >Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:41:21 -0800 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from n14.grp.scd. ([66.218.66.69]) by >mc7-f7.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Tue, 24 Dec >2002 10:41:23 -0800 >Received: from [66.218.66.94] by n14.grp.scd. with NNFMP; 24 Dec >2002 18:41:19 -0000 >Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 24 Dec 2002 18:41:16 -0000 >Received: (qmail 91279 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2002 18:41:15 -0000 >Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd. with QMQP; >24 Dec 2002 18:41:15 -0000 >Received: from unknown (HELO mta5.snfc21.pbi.net) (206.13.28.241) by >mta2.grp.scd. with SMTP; 24 Dec 2002 18:41:15 -0000 >Received: from bresson ([63.193.251.18]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet >Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.6 (built Oct 18 2002)) with SMTP id ><0H7M00LOGZWRPD for ; Tue, 24 >Dec 2002 10:41:15 -0800 (PST) >X-eGroups-Return: >sentto-4083536-3293-1040755278-dianabananam=hotmail.com\ m >X-Sender: colleen >X-Apparently- >Message-id: <007801c2ab7c$11c65460$6401a8c0 >X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-priority: Normal >Mailing-List: list SFBAVeg ; contact >SFBAVeg-owner >Delivered-mailing list SFBAVeg >Precedence: bulk >List-Un: <SFBAVeg- > >Return-Path: >sentto-4083536-3293-1040755278-dianabananam=hotmail.com\ m >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Dec 2002 18:41:23.0367 (UTC) >FILETIME=[0EE04B70:01C2AB7C] > >I don't know if you've heard about it on the news, but an 11- and >14-year-old broke into a neighbors' backyard, poured gasoline on the dog >(named Lucky), and lit him on fire. The South Bay Veterinarian Society is >caring for him, and the bill is running up to $10,000 at this point. People >are donating to help the family pay for Lucky's treatment, and he seems to >be recovering nicely. If you would like to add one more recipient to your >holiday gift list, please consider making a donation on Lucky's behalf: >http://www.sbvs.com/luckie_fund.htm (details for payment at bottom of the >page). > >Colleen > " Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all >evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still >savages. " ~Thomas Edison > >--------------------- > " Don't do nothing because you can't do everything. Do Something. Anything. " >~Sasha > > " As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be >no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice >cannot dwell together. " ~Isaac Bashevis Singer > > " The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made >for humans anymore than black people were made for whites or women for >men. " ~Alice Walker > > " Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all >evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still >savages. " ~Thomas Edison >--------------------- >Colleen Patrick-Goudreau >Senior Content & Creative Director >JustGive.org >1625 Clay Street, 7th Floor >Oakland, CA 94612 >phone (510) 238-5004 >fax (510) 238-4809 >colleen >http://www.justgive.org > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2002 Report Share Posted December 25, 2002 Diana asked: " why don't the guardians sue the kids (or their parents)? " The problem with suing the perpetrators of crimes against companion animals is the limitation on the damages (compensation) available to animal guardians. Unfortunately, as an animal is property under the law, no damages can be recovered for an animal's pain and suffering. Thus, guardians are usually limited to suing for the value of the companion animal or the amount of money they lost, say in veterinary bills, whichever is lower. As most companion animals have virtually no economic value, and as court costs and attorney fees can add up, it generally doesn't make economic sense to sue for the very limited amount of damages available. Historically, animal guardians have been unable to sue for their own loss of consortium, meaning the loss of the animal's affection and companionship, the way one can sue for loss of consortium of a human loved one. During the past year or so, one appellate court in this country, (I forget which one), has allowed an animal's guardians to sue for loss of consortium, but this is an isolated incident, not a trend. Whether or not animal guardians can seek punitive damages from the parents of cruel children I do not know. An award of punitive damages requires a finding that the wrongdoer acted maliciously, with the intent to harm another or in willful disregard of the likelihood of such harm. I find it hard to believe that a jury would award punitive damages against parents because the kids, not the parents, were so cruel. Even if there is evidence that the parents knew that their children were torturing neighbors' companion animals and did nothing about it, I find it unlikely that jurors could find that the parents acted maliciously, rather than negligently. Thus, punitive damages are unlikely to be granted in a case like this one. The bottom line is that the current sorry state of affairs will continue until the legislatures of the States change the laws or the courts change their interpretations of laws to allow guardians of animals to sue for loss of consortium. Better yet, they should change the status of animals so that they are no longer property. Now that will be a day to celebrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.