Sarah and Denis Scheele drove to Vermont from their home in Maryland with their dog, Shadow. They stopped for a rest in the parking lot of a church in Northfield. Shadow was allowed off leash. He wandered onto neighboring property owned by Lewis Dustin.Dustin was sitting on his porch with a pellet gun planning to shoot squirrels. Shadow was not aggressive. Dustin was not threatened.Nevertheless, Dustin decided to shoot Shadow, presumably for sport, which he did, killing him instantly. Scheels saw the shot and watched Shadow hemorrhage and die. Scheeles and Dustin agreed that shooting Shadow was intentional and malicious.
Scheels sued Dustin for economic damages of $155 to replace the dog, but also for severe emotional distress including recurring nightmares, sleeplessness, periods of sadness, and destruction of the special relationship they each had with Shadow including affection, friendship and love for him.They asked for damages of $1,500 each, or a total of $3,000 plus non-economic damages.
The trial court ruled the legislature had never enacted a law permitting recovery of emotional or companionship damages for loss of a dog, rather than a person. Judge Toor allowed only a $155 recovery. Scheels appealed. They argued the Supreme Court should extend the common law which seeks to permit injured persons to be compensated by wrongdoers, especially when the harm is intentional and malicious. Scheels could have sued for punitive damages against Dustin. Those damages are intended to punish the wrong doer and set an example for others. Although there is no limited on punitive damages, generally Courts restrict the amount to some reasonable multiple of the actual economic damages.Scheels attorney recognized they were seeking to make new law so they asked for emotional damages rather than punitive damages hoping to establish a precedent for an award of damages for a pet’s death.They urged the Court to limit its ruling to dogs, because they “love you back.”As the six year old told the Veterinarian who euthanized a 12 year old dog and tried to explain why dogs lived such a short life compared to people: ‘’People are born so that they can learn how tolive agood life - like loving everybody all the time and being nice, right?’’ ‘Well,dogs already know how to do that, so they don’t have to stay aslong.’’
A unanimous supreme court ruled for Dustin. Most state courts, including Vermont, regard all animals, including pets, as personal property, no different than, say a bicycle.This treatment, the Court acknowledged, “fails to recognize that a pet’s worth is not primarily financial – its value derives from the animal’s relationship with its human companions.” Indeed, the court wrote, “pets occupy a legal realm somewhere between chattel and children.” Animals aren’t like bicycles. The law restricts humans from doing what they want with animals; they cannot be abused, tortured or starved. Minimal standards of care are required. Nevertheless, the court ruled, if changes are to be made, it is up to the legislature, not to the court.
Apart from avoiding the usual blather about “judicial activism,” the court’s decision recognizes the difficulty inherent in devising a fair compensation system for loss of pets.Is the test to be limited to dogs, or all other creatures “that love you back?”Proof of an animal’s emotional connection to a person, rather than the other way around, is challenging. Undoubtedly pets are becoming more and more like family – can the law keep up?Scheele v. Dustin 2010 VT 45
