Owner of Killed Dogs Gets $250,000 Verdict
$100,00 in Non-Economic Damages
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/31.710 [Note this states 2013 law; not sure if it has changed]
The Jury ruled in Clark’s favor for not only the $7,500 replacement value for the dogs, but $100,000 in non-economic damage for Clark’s emotional harm and $139,500 in punitive damages.
“The verdict is significant in that there are very few jury verdicts around the country that have given a plaintiff more than the value of the animal in situations like this.”
(Non-economic damages could negatively impact animal ownership)
Read more here: Jury awards hefty damages in sheep dogs killings
ARs have widely pushed courts to award “non-economic” awards for the loss of animals. Usually, because animals are property under the law, there are seldom a lot of “non-economic” money awards for loss of an animal. The reason for this is because basically, non-economic awards are usually limited to loss of life of humans.
When a human life is lost due to acts of another, the money alone is all that can be awarded outside of placing the criminal or defendant in jail. Thus, the only thing that can be awarded, is to compensate for pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc. For example, a relative that is run down by a drunk driver, where the relative is a son or daughter of the person who sues, can be compensated for loss of the human who is related. But not all losses can be compensated like this.
Tort law, which governs such situations, is different in many states, and in some states a person cannot be compensated for loss of a human who is not related to the person; or, there must be a specific relationship in existence. In any event, the award of non-economic damages for animal loss is a rather dangerous concept actually (that ARs LOVE) since ARs would love to sue rodeos, circuses, movie productions, television, any animal entertainment or training entities, for animal abuse and emotional harm by claiming they (the ARs) suffered harm by watching it. Or they suffered some type of emotional distress because of some fathomed relationship they had with the animals; or that the animals were being used for some unlawful purpose, even if it was acting in a movie? Which is why you see the phrase “no animals were harmed” in the making of this movie.