Canine Rights

Texas Supreme Court to Rule on Sentimental Value of Dogs

“This post contains affiliate links, and I will be compensated if you make a purchase after clicking on my links.”

As the law currently stands, then, a dog is only valued at the replacement cost. But, a sentimental photograph of that same dog, if destroyed, could be worth a tremendous amount of money in a lawsuit.

There is no “market value” assigned to the companionship lost when a dog is wrongfully killed – and that’s what the Texas Supreme Court will be forced to determine this year.

Carla Strickland’s attorney, John Cayce, told ABC News, “This case really goes beyond the dispute between Strickland and the Medlens. It would have an adverse impact on just the average citizen in the state that might accidentally run over a dog on the way to work. With that kind of liability, the insurance rates would go up.”

Additionally, Cayce said, “They have proved that the emotional sentimental value of a pet could be as high as the national debt.”

However, the Medlens say they aren’t looking for a big payout. They simply want the courts to “recognize the value society places on animals, now.”

Should the Medlens win their case at the Supreme Court level, those entrusted with the care of companion animals throughout the state, and eventually the nation, will be forced to be more careful. Bottom line, fewer families, like the Medlens, will be powerless against those that accidentally kill their pets.

Both attorneys agree that a Supreme Court decision should be made before the end of this year.

What other changes would you expect to see if the Supreme Court rules that dogs have sentimental value?

2 of 2Next
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Image 100572046 13348155
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Hello! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering if you knew where I could locate a captcha plugin for my comment form?
    I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having difficulty finding one?
    Thanks a lot!

  2. Avatar Of Elaine

    Elaine

    says:

    Dogs are more than property to some, but not to others. I hope the Supreme Court takes into consideration the puppy mill breeders who consider their dogs to be property and the puppies “products”. I would hate to put any power in their hands to stop the raids and rescues. My dogs are family to me and if they ever got in a situation where some one else killed them, I would pursue that person to the ends of my day. I’d sure be asking some hard questions of that Carla Strickland. Could she not read ? Why would she euthanize a dog that had a sihn “hold for family”.

    • Avatar Of Bridget Anderson

      Bridget Anderson

      says:

      I agree Elaine.My fur babies are family,but we don’t need puppy mill breeders benefiting from this.Shame on Carla ! Who knows how many times this has happened

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top

Like Us for Wonderful Dog Stories and Cute Photos!