Do Animals have a "market value"?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Looking for a legal answer, not an emotional one.

If I hit someone's car, we all know repairs are limited to market value. The person I hit can't spend £5K fixing a £2K car.

What if I hit a dog? It needs £5K of operations to fix its leg. Can the dog owner claim that, if it was a mongrel worth £30. If it was a supreme champion worth £20K, then I guess he could. Do dogs have a market value, like other property.

By the way, I haven't hit either. Just an idle discussion at work.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Saleen836 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Looking for a legal answer, not an emotional one.

If I hit someone's car, we all know repairs are limited to market value. The person I hit can't spend £5K fixing a £2K car.

What if I hit a dog? It needs £5K of operations to fix its leg. Can the dog owner claim that, if it was a mongrel worth £30. If it was a supreme champion worth £20K, then I guess he could. Do dogs have a market value, like other property.

By the way, I haven't hit either. Just an idle discussion at work.

Do you have any pets?
If you do and it got run over and you only paid £50 for it from the dogs home, would you tell the vet to put it to sleep if it required a £5k operation which wasn't going to cost you a penny?

Did you read the first line of my post?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

The Surveyor said:

He's looking for a legal perspective, not an emotive one. The value of a loved pet can't be measured in £'s, but can it be legally?

I suppose the best comparison would be to look at pet insurance and see what they would see fit to cover?

Pet insurance doesn't answer it because of course they cover set amounts, regardless of animal market value. I'm talking about tp liability towards someone else's animal.

But I now have an answer. A dog/cat/etc is property, like an engagement ring. It may be priceless to the owner but to a tp it's worth market value and no more.

If someone runs over my cat, they are obligated to repair or replace, whichever is the lower value. Even if it was all their fault (cat was in my garden, they crashed thru my hedge). In the case of my cat, replace for a fiver! It's just a mixed breed fleabag. If I want to repair my cat, I have to pay myself (unless I have pet cover).

[TwigtheWonderkid]

The Surveyor said:

Zetec-S said:

Someone wiser than me can clarify, but I believe the laws are different for cats as they are to dogs. Something along the lines of cats are classed as "free spirits" so they/their owner can't be held accountable for their actions, and vice versa (so if you run over a cat you are not legally obliged to stop).

If I'm wrong then someone feel free to correct me

That's my understand too. Cat's don't matter (in the eyes of the law) unless it's a general animal cruelty thing of course.

All true. But if someone is negligent in damaging your property, then they are liable. Even if it's a cat. But they are liable to repair it or to replace it, whichever has the lower value. For all but pedigree cats, they are virtually worthless. I think I paid £40 for my 2. £20 each. And they're 10 yrs old now, so assume betterment would apply.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Zetec-S said:

Might be hard to prove negligence? Unless you have something like video of someone obviously speeding/driving like a tt, but even then the free spirit element might count against a claim?

Given the tp is only liable for the replacement value, if he was negligent, for the sake of a tenner he might as well admit to it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ging84 said:

I believe repairs being limited to the value of the car is convention based on the principle of mitigating losses.
It would generally be unreasonable to claim £5k to repair a car you could easily replace for £2k.
It might be reasonable to spend £5k to treat a beloved pet, even if you could get a younger replacement for free from a rescue centre.

If you do, you can't claim it back from the responsible third party. In law, a pet is no different to a car or any other item on property. You can't claim more than it's market value to repair it. The law says spending £5K to fix a mongrel that could be replaced for £20 is not reasonable.

Of course, if you buy your own pet policy, then that doesn't apply. You have fixed amounts of cover for vet fees, regardless of the value of Fido. Talking purely about tp liability.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Another question. If your dog is a passenger in your car, and you get hit up the rear, can the dog claim for whipleash.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Roofless Toothless said:

Or if a rare tiger escaped from the zoo,

As opposed to one of those common tigers?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ging84 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If you do, you can't claim it back from the responsible third party. In law, a pet is no different to a car or any other item on property. You can't claim more than it's market value to repair it. The law says spending £5K to fix a mongrel that could be replaced for £20 is not reasonable.

Of course, if you buy your own pet policy, then that doesn't apply. You have fixed amounts of cover for vet fees, regardless of the value of Fido. Talking purely about tp liability.

I disagree, the cost of treatment for a beloved pet can exceed it's market value but still pass the reasonableness test.

In your mind maybe. But that's not what the law says. Common law precedent applies. TP liability is restricted to the repair cost or replacement value of the animal, whichever is the lower.

If you want more than that, buy your own pet insurance.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

PAULJ5555 said:

Watching the telly, I'm sure bailiffs can take pedigree dogs with papers to sell on to recoupe the debt, there must be a market value here.

When my 6yr old dog was put down because of terminal cancer, my dog insurance co as part of the policy paid you back for the initial amount paid for the dog.
I paid £1000 for the dog but could have also bought the same breed for £300 there was no market value in this instance just produce a receipt.

We're talking purely about third party liability. Your own policy may well agree to pay a fixed amount, regardless of market value.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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]

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.

Can't find a case, but this article on dealing with pets as part of a divorce confirms the legal status of pets as chattels, no different to furniture or jewellery. It then goes on to talk about high value pets such as show dogs and race horses.

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...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

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]

Pica-Pica said:

Mr E said:

I had a cat killed by a car (yes, it was that cat).
My pet insurance insisted on paying me the £10 the cat cost me from the local farm.

Pet insurance? For a cat?

Are vet's fees free for a cat?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Is Breadvan around or anyone else to give the legal position.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

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]

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]

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.

That training would be factored into the replacement cost. Like say a basic van, converted into a luxury motorhome. The market value of a dog would be it's value as a basic dog, plus enhancements, such as training. The market value of a guide dog or a sheep dog would be higher than a basic mutt. So repair as opposed to replacement becomes more likely.