Putting a Price on Paw Love

Your animal companion means the world to you. Now, you can prove it in court.

The deepening human-animal bond has been a trend for some time that has been observed through our spending behavior and anecdotal evidence. The loving care and attention we give our animals reflects how emotionally and physically rewarding, our relationships with animals are.

To reflect this evolution of the human-animal relationship, economists Anthony L. Liuzzo, J.D, PhD and Qian Hao, PhD of PA-based Wilkes University developed a theoretical model to measure the value of having a pet. The model was created in the hopes of creating a fairer sense of compensation in court cases involving pet custody issues, the abuse or neglect of an animal, and any other situations in which a pet guardian would sue for damages. 

Liuzzo, whose personal area of expertise is in the area of human life values, began examining the value of an animal’s life, as it relates within the legal system, about ten years ago. He wrote a paper on the issue then; it received little public attention—although it did garner the praise of the famous Judge Wapner of The People's Court—the topic re-ignited his interest in 2007 when pets had been sickened and died as a result of tainted pet food. 

"I noticed little was written on the topic," Liuzzo says. He decided to partner with Hao to address the issue, especially as people and animals have gotten increasingly close over the years.

“I observed that pets were being treated differently, that the relationship between humans and pets was evolving and that people were spending great amounts of money on their pets, in the form of toys, vet bills, quality food, and other things, and it is still happening,” Liuzzo explains.  

“The courts need to recognize that the relationship between owners and their pets have been evolving over time; they need to take into consideration that people have these relationships with their pets, and their pets are not just ‘possessions’ like televisions or laptop computers,” he adds.

Liuzzo notes that when a laptop breaks, its owner will treat it very differently than how a pet guardian treats his or her cat. “If something is wrong with the cat, you keep the cat, you expend the money to keep the cat healthy,” he maintains. “The cat is a unique creature, not like a computer, that if it breaks you may just get a new one.” 

“There is a difference between personal property of pets and other personal property, and courts need to take that into consideration, that these two forms of property are different from one another,” he says.

Currently, in the courts, a cat or a dog is only worth its fair market value, which in some cases, may just be a few dollars, shockingly low for a loving guardian, to whom a loyal feline or canine is invaluable.

Co-author Hao says that the model, which is detailed in her and Liuzzo’s Measuring the Value of Petness: Economic and Legal Perspectives, to be published in the Pennsylvania Economic Review, is meant to make the job of juries and judges easier when deliberating animal-related court cases.

“Judges and juries often find themselves lacking economic theories or tools to help them determine how much the owner of the pet should be compensated for the loss of the pet due to another person’s negligence or intentional conduct,” Hao explains. “Many have observed that there are no quantitative measurement techniques for the value of petness in academic field.  This is due to the difficulty in calibrating the utility function and preferences of the pet owner.”

Animal welfare advocates praise the efforts of Liuzzo and Hao to encourage courts to come closer to recognizing the value of animals in our lives.“Courts must reflect society's evolution in understanding the vital role pets fulfill in the lives of so many,” Kristen L. Nelson, DVM says. “Although a young field, those of us focused on the Human-Animal Bond are getting better at quantifying the impact animals bring to people. These include lowering blood pressure, relieving stress, companionship and unconditional love. I applaud Drs. Liuzzo and Hao for their analysis to guide courts in awarding appropriate damages for loss.”

Nelson notes that while it has been established in at least one state that a pet dog, for instance, is worth more than a material possession, the model will help establish more fairness in the legal system.  

“In 1996 a New York State court found that a pet dog was ‘somewhere between a person and personal property.’  That is a rational standard,” Nelson says. “It reflects the essential role animals often play in the lives of their people. Economically, it is insufficient to value the life of an animal with the metric of property.  Nor is it proper to equate the loss to that of a human being.  The mathematical basis that Liuzzo and Hao submit advances the field and seeks to strike the right balance between those two extremes.”

Like Liuzzo, Nelson highlights the importance of recognizing the unique relationships that animals and their guardians share.“Too often, we address this question solely from the human perspective.  Animals have senses, feelings and experience emotion,” she explains. “If our courts establish a special category for loss associated with pets, it may conceptually allow for justice from the animal's perspective.  At a minimum, it should be clear by now that viewing animals as property is in no measure a position that can be defended by an enlightened citizenry, bar or bench.”

While just a handful of states recognize the emotional factors involved in animal-related court cases, many still require reform in this area.  

“Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky and Louisiana have statutes authorizing recovery for the infliction of emotional distress for the death of a pet,” Nelson notes. “Sadly, many states deny this possibility and ignore the scientific evidence that animals are so much more than property.”

“Whether in divorces or in court cases adjudicating the loss of an animal, I find the courts, legislatures and society are grappling with this issue. That is the first step. As the authors suggest, we must refine and coalesce around a shared methodology to measure love and its loss,” Nelson says. “In the fair punishment of offenders and the just compensation of victims, it is essential that we get this issue right.”

Editor’s Note: Are you an animal lover? The Animal House Jamaica rescues, heals and provides much-needed love and valuable medical attention to countless abused, neglected, and abandoned dogs, cats, horses, goats and other animals; it is also the only no-kill shelter on the island of Jamaica. Please go to http://www.theanimalhousejamaica.org/ and kindly consider making a donation to help these loving, vulnerable animals enjoy a second chance at happiness.