May 2, 2008

TAMPA, Fla. -- Many pet owners consider their animals family. But in many states, the strict letter of the law considers them property -- like a car, chair or pencil. However, a recent court decision in Florida may lead to changes in that mindset, and provide pet owners with more rights for animals. The change stems from a judge's ruling in a case that began with a Dalmatian attacking a Yorkie.

Spoiled and wonderful -- the words Staci Mitvalsky uses to describe her tiny Yorkie, Joey. But just a couple years ago, the description would have been starkly different.

“It was awful. We came very close to losing him,” Mitvalsky said.

It was on an afternoon walk with Mitvalsky near their home that Joey met an unleashed Dalmatian. Mitvalsky said the owner told her the dog was friendly. That may be questionable -- as after a few sniffs, Mitvalsky said the Dalmatian took one big bite of Joey and dropped him.

Joey raced back to their home, and couldn’t stop whimpering and licking his side. Mitvalsky said he was bloody.

Four puncture wounds on his side required immediate surgery. The small dog then had an ensuing atypical bacterial infection that “was spreading and eating his skin from inside out” led to a dozen different antibiotics to control the infection. Mitvalsky racked up close to $5,000 in medical bills, not including her time and travel costs from her home in Tampa to Gainesville to treat the infection.

After the Dalmatian’s owner didn’t respond to Mitvalsky’s neighborly request for reimbursement, it ended up in court, where a judge ruled in Mitvalsky’s favor. The Dalmatian’s owner appealed. That’s when Mitvalsky hired animal law attorney Jennifer Dietz.

“I’m actually shocked (the Dalmatian’s owner) did not offer to pay the entire amount of the vet bills and that Staci had to go to court, pay money to go to court, pay a filing fee, pay to have the person serviced, and ask for money that legitimately should have been paid,” Dietz said.

Florida statute considers pets to be “property” -- much like a chair. As such, compensation can be determined by the “depreciated value” of a pet. In this case, Joey’s “value” as property is close to $600 -- significantly less than the medical bills the injury caused.

Appeal judges ultimately upheld the lower court’s decision, requiring the Dalmatian’s owner to pay the original amount of the lawsuit, which was close to $5,000 in the medical bills. Dietz called the decision “precedent setting.”

“The court said give her $5,000 for the vet bills and we’re upholding it based on the fact that we believe in this sentient being that has feelings and emotions and that Staci isn’t just the owner, she’s the companion. She’s the keeper. They’re family members,” Dietz said.

Dietz believes this opinion opens the doors for other owners who seek compensation beyond the “property” status of their pets and the ensuing depreciated value of property.

But constitutional law expert Darryl Wilson, a professor at Stetson University in Gulfport, Fla., doesn’t agree the decision has as big of a an impact as Dietz does.

“Nothing in the opinion said the pet is more than a pencil or personal property and we need to consider that aspect of pet valuation,” Wilson said. “The lower court went into whether or not a pet was worth the cost of taking it to the vet. I think everybody, if their pet gets wounded regardless of circumstances -- it has enough value to say ‘yeah, let’s take it to the doctor and see what’s wrong with it.’”

Wilson said what’s missing is a standard-setting element to the opinion, which provides monetary value. He said cases in Florida and elsewhere have looked into replacement value for pets, but no consensus has been reached. In that respect, Dietz’s case may have merit.

“This case could be an impetus for state standards and to start national standards where individuals might try to standardize the value of pets,” Wilson said.

The attorney for the Dalmatian’s owner, Glen Katon, believes the appeal decision is “intellectually dishonest.”

“The judges were just rubber stamping-the trial court’s decision and doing it contrary to the controlling law,” Katon said.

Katon said his client does not plan another appeal because of the expense.

Dietz remains optimistic about the impact of the appeal decision.

“Animals have been ‘property’ for thousands of years,” Dietz said. “That door got cracked open a little bit from ‘property’ only, nothing more than that, to, you know what, they might not just be property.”

However, if at all, the appeal affects other animal owners, Mitvalsky said she hopes the experience has taught the Dalmatian’s owner a lesson.

“It’s disturbing because owning an animal -- people have to be very responsible. A lot goes into that. And a lack of responsibility can obviously effect other people,” Mitvalsky said.

Joey has fully recovered and judging from a recent visit, has no apprehensions about afternoon walks anymore.

Tell us what you think about “Fla. Case Sets Tone for Upping Pet Value” below, and be sure to watch the video of this story at the top right of your page. Share your favorite videos by clicking on the ZootooTV tab. Send us your story ideas by e-mailing us at news@zootoo.com or by calling us at 877-777-4204.