VT Supreme Court rules against expanding pet litigation awards (PR Newswire)‏

Sent: May 11, 2009 4:06:19 PM

PR Newswire
Vermont Supreme Court Ruling Supports Animal Welfare in Turning Back
Attempt to Expand Pet-Related Litigation
May 8, 2009
http://sev.prnewswire.com/government/20090508/DC1414008052009-1.html

WASHINGTON, -- In a decision that will protect animal health and
welfare by containing the costs of caring for animals, the Vermont
Supreme Court today affirmed a lower court decision not to introduce
non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, into pet litigation.
The Animal Health Institute joined numerous knowledgeable pet welfare
and ownership organizations in submitting a "friend of the court"
brief urging the Vermont high court to adopt this position.

In its ruling, the court explained that emotional damages are rarely
permitted for injuries to others and generally not available for the
loss of many close relatives. Therefore, even though pets have special
characteristics as personal property and that people have unique
emotional attachments to their pets, the court would not expand the
law to provide recovery options for pets that are not available in
many human-human relationships. To rule otherwise, the court stated,
would be "a dramatic alteration to the law."

"It is beyond dispute that our bond with pets often, if not usually,
transcends their value to strangers in the marketplace," reads the
decision. "Experience tells us that emotional attachments can also
attend our associations with farm and work animals. Plaintiffs fail to
demonstrate a compelling reason why, as a matter of public policy, the
law should offer broader compensation for the loss of a pet than would
be available for the loss of a friend, relative, work animal, heirloom
or memento -- all of which can be prized beyond measure, but for which
this state's law does not recognize recovery for sentimental loss."

Joining the Animal Health Institute in submitting its "friend of the
court" brief were the Vermont Federation of Dog Clubs, the American
Kennel Club and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. The group
explained in their brief that, "While a few owners may monetarily
benefit from these awards, their pets do not, and other people's pets
will end up going without needed medical care. This is because the
cost of pet care will increase due to this new liability, causing many
owners to be unable or unwilling to provide their pets with necessary
and proper medical treatment."

In responding to the court's decision today, Dr. Kent McClure, General
Counsel for AHI said, "We commend the Vermont Supreme Court for siding
with animals and helping to protect a cost structure that has allowed
people to care for and form emotional attachments to their pets.
Keeping costs affordable is important to allow people of all income
levels to enjoy access to care for their pets."

Dr. McClure further explained that owners can already be fully
compensated in these lawsuits. "The current legal system already
provides fair compensation to aggrieved pet owners. Owners can be
fully compensated for their out-of-pocket expenses and for punitive
damage awards where there is an intentional malicious act. These new
damages are unnecessary to owners and harmful to pets."

The Vermont Supreme Court joins a long line of state courts
reaffirming the longstanding legal principle that emotional harm
damages are not allowed in litigation over pets. In the past few
years, state supreme and appellate courts in nearly thirty states have
reaffirmed that emotional loss in pet injury and death cases is not
compensable under any legal theory. In addition, a 2007 Gallup Poll
found an overwhelming majority (63%) of Americans, including pet
owners, said that pet owners should only be entitled to actual
economic damages, and not pain and suffering-type awards.

Today's Vermont Supreme Court's decision can be found at

http://170.222.4.25/supct/current/op2008-030.html.

The brief filed by
AHI and other pet groups is available on request.

AHI represents the companies that manufacture animal health products
-- the pharmaceuticals, vaccines and feed additives used in modern
food production, and the medicines that keep pets healthy.

Petland asks judge to dismiss HSUS-driven lawsuit (Dayton Daily News)‏

Sent: May 14, 2009 2:06:05 PM

Dayton Daily News (OH)
Petland asks judge to toss lawsuit

By Tim Tresslar
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
http://www.daytondailynews.com/business/petland-asks-judge-to-toss-lawsuit-118058.html

Petland Inc., a Chillicothe-based chain of pet stores, and The Hunte
Corp., a puppy supplier, have asked a federal judge to toss out a
proposed class-action lawsuit alleging the companies sold unhealthy
puppies to consumers.

In separate motions filed in federal court Tuesday, May 12, the
companies also denied having committed any violations of federal
racketeering and corruption or fraud laws.

The companies alleged the Humane Society of the United States, while
not a plaintiff, drove the lawsuit forward by providing legal and
public relations assistance to the plaintiffs. Hunte in court papers
further alleges HSUS wants to eliminate pet stores and animal
suppliers such as Hunte and Petland.

“The stated goal of HSUS is the complete eradication of defendants’
businesses,” according to Hunte’s motion. The company neither breeds
puppies nor does it buy them from “inappropriate” sources, according
to court papers.

Petland did not respond to requests for additional comment Wednesday,
May 13. But the company in its motion claimed the lawsuit is part of
an effort to further an “anti-pet-store agenda.”

In a statement, HSUS said it “opposes the sale of dogs, cats and other
animals through pet stores and other commercial operations.”

A lawsuit filed in March had claimed that Petland sells unhealthy
puppies raised by big distributors in substandard conditions. Petland
has denied the lawsuit’s allegations, saying it provides veterinary
care for its puppies and certifies their health before the dogs are
sold.

In the court papers filed May 12, Hunte said it is committed to the
welfare of animals and provides the “absolute best care possible to
every single puppy” regardless of cost.

The plaintiffs include HSUS members. Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president
and chief counsel for HSUS, said it’s not uncommon for HSUS staff to
provide legal or other help to members and other constituents of the
group.

Since March, several hundred people have contacted HSUS about joining
in the lawsuit, Lovvorn said.