Do Animals have a "market value"?
Discussion
I wonder if the concept of market value even applies?...if the owner has a beloved pet that is hit and incurs a lot of veterinary bills to being the pet back to health, then it seems to me that is really a tort and the owner can recover the out of pocket costs?..I am assuming that the driver is at fault in this construct of course.Its really just damages?
For the majority of pet owners the market value is irrelevant because whatever it costs if they are stupid enough not to have pet insurance they will pay it regardless.
I would argue pets especially dogs have far more market value even than us humans.
For example if someone is unfortunate enough to get cancer or some other terminal disease the NHS makes a decision whether to fund a course of expensive drugs or not. Therefore us humans have market value, a price point the NHS will pay to keep us alive. When the point is passed then your time is up.
I would argue pets especially dogs have far more market value even than us humans.
For example if someone is unfortunate enough to get cancer or some other terminal disease the NHS makes a decision whether to fund a course of expensive drugs or not. Therefore us humans have market value, a price point the NHS will pay to keep us alive. When the point is passed then your time is up.
jdw100 said:
Solocle said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Roofless Toothless said:
Or if a rare tiger escaped from the zoo,
As opposed to one of those common tigers? 
. Will you people be serious?What I wanted to know is where this concept of free spirits comes from, how it is written into law, and where there might be a list of creatures that do or do not qualify. It seems a bit bizarre to me.
I saw five cows running down the road once, having got through a hedge or something. For domesticated farm stock they seemed to be pretty keen on the free spirit concept to me.
Oh, and by the way, I bet there are more than a few villages in India where they think that tigers aren't bloody rare enough ...
We'll he certainly needed his collar felt.
Seriously though, just as in the trained sheepdog example, a working dog may have more value than an identical animal that is just a pet, just a pet perhaps not the appropriate term but OP wants emotion out of it.
To take it to cars, a reliable and tidy 15 year old 'banger' is worth square root of bugger all these days in 'market value' but is worth multiple times of that to the owner as a working proposition.
Slightly bringing sentiment into it, guess that's why classic car agreed value insurance exists, on the basis that the standard market value methods don't work then, e.g. Glass's guide, indeed Class's no longer do one off valuations.
Our Golden being a working gundog, from provable champion working stock and abilities, at least when he's a mind to do it, git, is worth more than whatever Petplan would value him at. Points at various posts earlier in the thread about valuation at whatever you declare to have paid initially. In terms of liability to third party iirc Petplan covers you for up to a million, not sure how house insurance deals with it.
Working dog insurance is difficult to get, you certainly cannot get an online quote for it from Petplan, but they will certainly enter into a discussion, and I guess that's as near as it gets to an agreed value classic car type arrangement. It's in partnership with Countryside Alliance and is aimed at dogs used for game shooting, stalking, gundog working and training. Another is PetGuard in connection with The Field, they aim at game shooting, vermin control and wildfowling. They will do an online quote, but no idea about agreed value malarkey.
So my guess in answer to OP is that there is no market value but possibilities exist.
Seriously though, just as in the trained sheepdog example, a working dog may have more value than an identical animal that is just a pet, just a pet perhaps not the appropriate term but OP wants emotion out of it.
To take it to cars, a reliable and tidy 15 year old 'banger' is worth square root of bugger all these days in 'market value' but is worth multiple times of that to the owner as a working proposition.
Slightly bringing sentiment into it, guess that's why classic car agreed value insurance exists, on the basis that the standard market value methods don't work then, e.g. Glass's guide, indeed Class's no longer do one off valuations.
Our Golden being a working gundog, from provable champion working stock and abilities, at least when he's a mind to do it, git, is worth more than whatever Petplan would value him at. Points at various posts earlier in the thread about valuation at whatever you declare to have paid initially. In terms of liability to third party iirc Petplan covers you for up to a million, not sure how house insurance deals with it.
Working dog insurance is difficult to get, you certainly cannot get an online quote for it from Petplan, but they will certainly enter into a discussion, and I guess that's as near as it gets to an agreed value classic car type arrangement. It's in partnership with Countryside Alliance and is aimed at dogs used for game shooting, stalking, gundog working and training. Another is PetGuard in connection with The Field, they aim at game shooting, vermin control and wildfowling. They will do an online quote, but no idea about agreed value malarkey.
So my guess in answer to OP is that there is no market value but possibilities exist.
RDMcG said:
I wonder if the concept of market value even applies?...if the owner has a beloved pet that is hit and incurs a lot of veterinary bills to being the pet back to health, then it seems to me that is really a tort and the owner can recover the out of pocket costs?..I am assuming that the driver is at fault in this construct of course.Its really just damages?
You'd think so, but you can't. A tp is not liable for £1000 of vets bills to fix a mongrel that can be replaced by similar type mongrel for £20. A dog is no different in law to any other property. You can't spend £1000 fixing your old banger worth £50 and expect the liable tp to pay. Same with a dog. Obviously a working dog or champion show dog would have a higher replacement value, so you'd have more scope for expensive repairs.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Aretnap said:
I can't find anything definitive on the internet on how the law works in the UK so I don't know whether you're correct (do you know of an actual case?).
No, but I spoke to a good friend who is a senior claims bod at Allianz insurance. He says he's dealt with numerous cases over the years, negligence claims against vets, against dog groomers and walkers, pet food manufacturers, etc, where owners have claimed their dogs have been injured thru negligence. They've left their pet in someone's care, and it's ended up injured. Or the dog has got ill after eating superchunks or whatever. Tp liability in such cases is limited to putting right the injury, or replacement, whichever is the lowest.
It would be interesting to know if there's actual case law to support the position, and when it dates from.
It strikes me that if a court were minded to allow the claim for vets bills there are ways that they could do it that wouldn't violating the principle that you can't generally claim more than the value of the damaged property. For example they could allow it as a foreseeable consequential loss, akin to costs of recovering a damaged car, or loss of use, rather than as the direct value of the damage to property. As you know such costs in a car accident can often exceed the market value of a car - especially if the car is a 15 year old snotter. That seems to be the angle the US courts have taken.
Would be interesting to see what would happen if someone pushed a one of these cases to a higher court today.
(I'm aware that this is unqualified speculation of course - but what do you expect on an internet forum?)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You'd think so, but you can't. A tp is not liable for £1000 of vets bills to fix a mongrel that can be replaced by similar type mongrel for £20.
A dog is no different in law to any other property. You can't spend £1000 fixing your old banger worth £50 and expect the liable tp to pay. Same with a dog. Obviously a working dog or champion show dog would have a higher replacement value, so you'd have more scope for expensive repairs.
Which precise law would that be please or could you point to a case which demonstrates your argument? Just because your friend/acquaintance at an insurance company has processed claims he has dealt with in a particular manner does NOT prove that that's the law or that he did the correct thing. It is very common for companies or individuals to have been doing things in a way which is not in keeping with the law for many years. Just because it's the "current practice" doesn't mean that the "current practice" is legally correct.A dog is no different in law to any other property. You can't spend £1000 fixing your old banger worth £50 and expect the liable tp to pay. Same with a dog. Obviously a working dog or champion show dog would have a higher replacement value, so you'd have more scope for expensive repairs.
QuickQuack said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You'd think so, but you can't. A tp is not liable for £1000 of vets bills to fix a mongrel that can be replaced by similar type mongrel for £20.
A dog is no different in law to any other property. You can't spend £1000 fixing your old banger worth £50 and expect the liable tp to pay. Same with a dog. Obviously a working dog or champion show dog would have a higher replacement value, so you'd have more scope for expensive repairs.
Which precise law would that be please or could you point to a case which demonstrates your argument? Just because your friend/acquaintance at an insurance company has processed claims he has dealt with in a particular manner does NOT prove that that's the law or that he did the correct thing. It is very common for companies or individuals to have been doing things in a way which is not in keeping with the law for many years. Just because it's the "current practice" doesn't mean that the "current practice" is legally correct.A dog is no different in law to any other property. You can't spend £1000 fixing your old banger worth £50 and expect the liable tp to pay. Same with a dog. Obviously a working dog or champion show dog would have a higher replacement value, so you'd have more scope for expensive repairs.
But essentially, if the legal status is that of property, then that's how the courts would view them in a tp liability case.
Happy to be shown any articles to the contrary.
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/welfar...
The issue with that page is that it's about a different set of circumstances. But I've just found the page below and it looks like we are all correct depending on circumstances including the owner of the animal potentially being liable for the damage caused. It seems that in many cases the animal owner will be held liable for the damage, which gives me the impression that the driver's insurance company wouldn't pay a penny. If, on the other hand, the accident is the driver's fault, they or their insurance foots the vet bills. And then there seems to be a special category called dangerous animals where the owner seems to be liable no matter what!
http://www.asdonline.co.uk/advice-centre/road-traf...
From what I can see, of your pooch or avian assassin runs out into the road and gets hit, you're on your own and also liable for the damage to the car. But if that car mounts the pavement and flattens your dog who was just sitting there minding its own business, the driver pays the vet bills. I guess the value of the animal would come into play only if it is killed in the accident.
http://www.asdonline.co.uk/advice-centre/road-traf...
From what I can see, of your pooch or avian assassin runs out into the road and gets hit, you're on your own and also liable for the damage to the car. But if that car mounts the pavement and flattens your dog who was just sitting there minding its own business, the driver pays the vet bills. I guess the value of the animal would come into play only if it is killed in the accident.
QuickQuack said:
The issue with that page is that it's about a different set of circumstances. But I've just found the page below and it looks like we are all correct depending on circumstances including the owner of the animal potentially being liable for the damage caused. It seems that in many cases the animal owner will be held liable for the damage, which gives me the impression that the driver's insurance company wouldn't pay a penny. If, on the other hand, the accident is the driver's fault, they or their insurance foots the vet bills. And then there seems to be a special category called dangerous animals where the owner seems to be liable no matter what!
http://www.asdonline.co.uk/advice-centre/road-traf...
From what I can see, of your pooch or avian assassin runs out into the road and gets hit, you're on your own and also liable for the damage to the car. But if that car mounts the pavement and flattens your dog who was just sitting there minding its own business, the driver pays the vet bills. I guess the value of the animal would come into play only if it is killed in the accident.
It talks about the negligent driver being liable for vets bills, but it doesn't address the issue if the vets bills exceed the value of the animal.http://www.asdonline.co.uk/advice-centre/road-traf...
From what I can see, of your pooch or avian assassin runs out into the road and gets hit, you're on your own and also liable for the damage to the car. But if that car mounts the pavement and flattens your dog who was just sitting there minding its own business, the driver pays the vet bills. I guess the value of the animal would come into play only if it is killed in the accident.
The article I linked to confirmed the legal position of animals as mere property, chattels, no different to furniture or jewellery. If that's their position in law, then that position will apply regardless of circumstances.
The tp liability for an animal if the repair cost (vets fees) or the market value (replacing with a similar model) which ever is the lower. Just like any other item of property you might damage thru negligence.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It talks about the negligent driver being liable for vets bills, but it doesn't address the issue if the vets bills exceed the value of the animal.
The article I linked to confirmed the legal position of animals as mere property, chattels, no different to furniture or jewellery. If that's their position in law, then that position will apply regardless of circumstances.
The tp liability for an animal if the repair cost (vets fees) or the market value (replacing with a similar model) which ever is the lower. Just like any other item of property you might damage thru negligence.
I disagree with your interpretation of the chattel status. The article you linked to is about divorces where things have to have a value assigned so that assets can be divided between the parties and provisions can be made for future liabilities of dependents being looked after one party or the other. The article I linked to confirmed the legal position of animals as mere property, chattels, no different to furniture or jewellery. If that's their position in law, then that position will apply regardless of circumstances.
The tp liability for an animal if the repair cost (vets fees) or the market value (replacing with a similar model) which ever is the lower. Just like any other item of property you might damage thru negligence.
In the case of a death of a pet as a result of the fault of the driver, I agree that the liability of the insurer or driver would be limited to the replacement value with the same breed or rescue as applicable. However, if the animal remains alive following expensive veterinary intervention, I would be astounded if any judge would agree with the offer of "financially non-viable animal, kill it and the owner can be given a new one." The article I linked to states:
"If I accidentally hit a domesticated animal with my car, do I have to pay for the animal’s vet treatment?
You’re only legally liable for the vet treatment bills if the accident is found to be your fault (ie, caused by your reckless driving)."
There's no mention of limitation of the bills to the animal's replacement value, I would therefore posit that the bills would have to be paid regardless of the replacement value. I suspect that unless someone digs up a relevant case, we will disagree on this narrow point. I say narrow because in the vast majority of cases of pet v vehicle accidents I have seen or heard of, it has almost invariably been the case that the uncontrolled animal has run out in front of the car, in which case the owner gets nothing and indeed is liable for the damages caused to the vehicle in question.
ging84 said:
You keep going on about animals being property, but i don't know why
There is no legal principle that limits damages to the value of the property damaged.
If there was, hire car and recovery fees would have to be deducted from the settlement value for a written off car.
No for the overall claim, as in a hire car whilst yours is being fixed. But in respect of the item of property itself, you cannot exceed it's value. You would agree that as a responsible tp, you wouldn't be liable for repair costs if they exceeded the market value of the item being repaired. There is no legal principle that limits damages to the value of the property damaged.
If there was, hire car and recovery fees would have to be deducted from the settlement value for a written off car.
Mikeyjae said:
Would the driver be liable though unless it happened on a Zebra crossing or pedestrian crossing on red lights? If my dog ran across the road and got hit then that would be my fault for not having him on the lead or under control.
My (stupid) cat follows us on our dog walks sometimes, she's been known to use the zebra crossing and cars stop for her every time! (we do pick her up when we realise she is following us)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No for the overall claim, as in a hire car whilst yours is being fixed. But in respect of the item of property itself, you cannot exceed it's value. You would agree that as a responsible tp, you wouldn't be liable for repair costs if they exceeded the market value of the item being repaired.
I should have never mentioned a motor insurance example as it's brought you straight back round in a circle Pets are not cars, what is reasonable for a pet is the same as what is reasonable for a car.
I believe the 2006 animal welfare act creates a duty for pet owner to protect them from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
So if someone had the means to pay for treatment of an injured pet refused they may be committing a crime. The idea that if that injury was the result of someone else's negligence it would not be legally recoverable is preposterous.
Your claims handler may take the position that they will automatically pay out up to the market value of the pet, but will contest/investigate higher claims, but that does not mean they don't ultimately end up where the injury is confirm to be the result of negligence and the costs reasonable.
I would be very surprised if you could come up with any case law that supports your position.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff