Do Animals have a "market value"?
Discussion
ging84 said:
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.
There is no law requiring an owner of an animal to spend more than the financial value on fixing it. Nothing to stop the owner asking the vet to put the dog to sleep, because it needs a £500 course of tablets and a new dog could be bought for £25. The fact that the owner doesn't do that is a sentimental choice, not a business one. And you can't visit those costs on a tp. 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.
No different in law from an owner sentimentally attached to his car spending more than the market value to fix it. Do that if you want, but the tp is only liable for the market value. The balance you pay yourself.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
There is no law requiring an owner of an animal to spend more than the financial value on fixing it. Nothing to stop the owner asking the vet to put the dog to sleep, because it needs a £500 course of tablets and a new dog could be bought for £25. The fact that the owner doesn't do that is a sentimental choice, not a business one. And you can't visit those costs on a tp.
No different in law from an owner sentimentally attached to his car spending more than the market value to fix it. Do that if you want, but the tp is only liable for the market value. The balance you pay yourself.
Ah, that's where you're going wrong. A pet IS very different in law from an inanimate object such as a car because it is a living, breathing being and it DOES have rights. They may be classifid as chattels in a transaction, but the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (for England and Wales), the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals (Northern Ireland) Act 2011 are there to specifically safeguard the welfare of animals, both for wild and domestic animals. No insurance company can insist that an injurred but treatable animal be put down because it isn't financially viable. There isn't such a specific legal protection for cars or other inanimate objects except listed buildings. No different in law from an owner sentimentally attached to his car spending more than the market value to fix it. Do that if you want, but the tp is only liable for the market value. The balance you pay yourself.
You're conflating financial value in a purely financial transaction, division of assets in a divorce, with resolution of damage following a negligent action.
QuickQuack said:
Ah, that's where you're going wrong. A pet IS very different in law from an inanimate object such as a car .
Can you reference case law in respect of tp liability. I have it on good authority from a senior insurance claims manager that in law, they are exactly the same as any other property. A negligent third party is responsible to repair or replace, whichever is the lower. Strictly market value. The owners sentimental attachment and additional costs incurred as a result are not the tp's responsibility. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nothing to stop the owner asking the vet to put the dog to sleep, because it needs a £500 course of tablets and a new dog could be bought for £25. The fact that the owner doesn't do that is a sentimental choice, not a business one. And you can't visit those costs on a tp.
What if the dog is your business? I have friends who compete with their dogs and are paid athletes who travel round Europe and race and represent brands. If they were walking along the pavement and a driver mounts pavement and breaks a dogs leg or 2. Cost of basic dog is about £500, op to fix legs and rehab could be 10 times that so you could say well should put it down then but you cant replace it like for like as the dog has years of training in it and even if it were replaced then its 2 years before the dog can be competitive again so that's 2 years of lost earnings for my friend too.
Similarly with assistance dogs, you cant just pop to the pet shop and replace, they take years of training during which the owner may need additional support or be very much restricted in the lives.
In these scenarios it would be vastly preferable to spend the money fixing the dog and getting back to normal service faster.
RB Will said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nothing to stop the owner asking the vet to put the dog to sleep, because it needs a £500 course of tablets and a new dog could be bought for £25. The fact that the owner doesn't do that is a sentimental choice, not a business one. And you can't visit those costs on a tp.
What if the dog is your business? I have friends who compete with their dogs and are paid athletes who travel round Europe and race and represent brands. If they were walking along the pavement and a driver mounts pavement and breaks a dogs leg or 2. Cost of basic dog is about £500, op to fix legs and rehab could be 10 times that so you could say well should put it down then but you cant replace it like for like as the dog has years of training in it and even if it were replaced then its 2 years before the dog can be competitive again so that's 2 years of lost earnings for my friend too.
Similarly with assistance dogs, you cant just pop to the pet shop and replace, they take years of training during which the owner may need additional support or be very much restricted in the lives.
In these scenarios it would be vastly preferable to spend the money fixing the dog and getting back to normal service faster.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
QuickQuack said:
Ah, that's where you're going wrong. A pet IS very different in law from an inanimate object such as a car .
Can you reference case law in respect of tp liability. I have it on good authority from a senior insurance claims manager that in law, they are exactly the same as any other property. A negligent third party is responsible to repair or replace, whichever is the lower. Strictly market value. The owners sentimental attachment and additional costs incurred as a result are not the tp's responsibility. Animal Welfare Act 2006 (for England and Wales)
Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006
Welfare of Animals (Northern Ireland) Act 2011
This is not about third party liability, this is about welfare of a living being. The living being's welfare is protected by statute law. The law doesn't allow abrogation of the welfare requirement on grounds of cost and therefore the party who is liable for the accident is responsible for the cost of providing that welfare.
You've read something somewhere about animals being chattels in the eye of the law in one scenario and you're trying to extend that into a circumstance where it isn't applicable. If your argument was correct, the owners of an animal could never be prosecuted for cruelty to their animal because the argument would be "it's my chattels and the law says I can do what I like with my property." In fact nobody could ever be charged with cruelty to any animal; harming other people's animals would be criminal damage to property and harm to wild animals couldn't even be prosecuted. However, mistreatment of animals, both wild and domesticated/owned, is illegal by owners and strangers alike because in that circumstance, they're not just property or chattels.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
QuickQuack said:
Ah, that's where you're going wrong. A pet IS very different in law from an inanimate object such as a car .
Can you reference case law in respect of tp liability. I have it on good authority from a senior insurance claims manager that in law, they are exactly the same as any other property. A negligent third party is responsible to repair or replace, whichever is the lower. Strictly market value. The owners sentimental attachment and additional costs incurred as a result are not the tp's responsibility. What would a senior insurance claims manager do in this scenario:
Whiplash claim - projected duration - 9 months. £2k of damages.
Six months of physiotherapy could reduce pain, suffering, and loss of amenity by three months. 25 sessions @ £40 = £1k. Damages reduced by £500.
Would he refuse to pay out on the physio on the basis that the PSLA is not mitigated by the six months of physio?
Also, if the dog dies, could the human have a claim for PSLA as well? Could that change the financial threshold for 'writing off' the dog?
Finally, in other areas of the law, what about the fact that dogs etc. can be cared for from their owners' wills? (See Re: Dean [1899]).
I suspect that the law is unclear, because:
1. Most cases are resolved because of the duty of care - dogs don't (generally) claim whiplash in cars, and they tend to be at fault when they get run over;
2. No one really knows how it would pan out in court, so no one has a compelling interest to litigate it;
3. No one wants to deal with the PR from failing to deal with £5k's worth of properly incurred vet bills - the bad publicity would be worth more than the saving.
Whiplash claim - projected duration - 9 months. £2k of damages.
Six months of physiotherapy could reduce pain, suffering, and loss of amenity by three months. 25 sessions @ £40 = £1k. Damages reduced by £500.
Would he refuse to pay out on the physio on the basis that the PSLA is not mitigated by the six months of physio?
Also, if the dog dies, could the human have a claim for PSLA as well? Could that change the financial threshold for 'writing off' the dog?
Finally, in other areas of the law, what about the fact that dogs etc. can be cared for from their owners' wills? (See Re: Dean [1899]).
I suspect that the law is unclear, because:
1. Most cases are resolved because of the duty of care - dogs don't (generally) claim whiplash in cars, and they tend to be at fault when they get run over;
2. No one really knows how it would pan out in court, so no one has a compelling interest to litigate it;
3. No one wants to deal with the PR from failing to deal with £5k's worth of properly incurred vet bills - the bad publicity would be worth more than the saving.
Edited by CYMR0 on Monday 31st July 18:34
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff