Texas Court Asks: Is Man's Best Friend Priceless?

[Purveyor]

USTIN, Texas (AP) - They say all dogs to heaven. But if they get there before their time, should someone pay up?

The Texas Supreme Court tackled the question Thursday in a case brought by a Fort Worth family. The family wants a jury to put a dollar amount on the emotional value of their beloved dog that an animal shelter mistakenly euthanized in 2009.

Jeremy and Kathryn Medlen say they're entitled to the same "sentimental damages" that someone could collect under Texas law for an irreplaceable family heirloom. Justices appeared skeptical at times, asking if a dead goldfish should be treated similarly.

MORE...

http://www.kwqc.com/story/20555206/texas-court-asks-is-mans-best-friend-priceless

[sadbear]

1. Oh, man. Why do I feel the Texas Supreme Court is going to fuck this one up?

No matter how they rule, it'll probably be wrong.

[Smilo]

2. I feel for the family, I really do

but to try and make beacoup dollars out of this is disgusting.

[dsc]

4. I am just curious where in the article did the amount of damages come up?

[Warpy]

5. Oh, I think damages should be limited to replacement costs

if the dog was purebred, adoption costs and vet care if it was a shelter dog.

No dog is completely irreplaceable, although we all have known one or two we bonded with completely who seemed that way, just as no human is really irreplaceable, something we all find out when we retire. It just hurts like hell to lose them, doubly if we lost them in some horrible way.

The family needs to grieve and then look for a new four footed family member to get to know. The shelter should compensate them, but compensation should be limited. Shelters generally operate on a shoestring, and taking money away from them for some sort of punitive damages is unconscionable.

[Duer 157099]

3. I know that my dog is an irreplaceable family heirloom

and I'd be livid if this happened to her.