Pets Should Not Have Legal Rights Equivalent to Humans in Court, Experts Say

A recent ruling by Brooklyn state Supreme Court Justice Aaron Maslow has sparked significant debate over the legal status of pets in the realm of personal injury law. The case revolves around a tragic incident involving a four-year-old dachshund named Duke, who was killed by a car on July 4, 2023. Duke was being walked by his owner, Nan DeBlase, when he was struck while crossing the street. Following this traumatic incident, DeBlase and her son sought damages against the driver, citing reckless driving.

The legal argument presented by the DeBlase family centers on the emotional distress suffered due to the loss of their pet. However, Justice Maslow ruled that under current laws, DeBlase was eligible for a type of payout historically reserved for individuals who witness the death or injury of immediate family members—such as parents, spouses, or children—not for pets. The judge’s decision was based on existing legal frameworks that do not extend the same emotional compensation for the loss of an animal, thereby emphasizing the distinction between pets and human family members.

While Justice Maslow correctly limited the potential damages available to DeBlase’s son, Trevor, to the market value of the dog, veterinary expenses, and direct costs associated with Duke’s death, he allowed for broader damages for DeBlase based on her emotional connection to her pet. This decision has raised concerns that it may prioritize emotional claims over established legal principles.

The judge noted societal shifts in perceptions regarding pets and their roles within families, referencing a 2021 state law that allows courts to consider a pet’s welfare during divorce proceedings and a growing inclination among businesses to accommodate pet owners. Nevertheless, critics argue that recognizing pets as family members in legal contexts could blur the lines between human rights and property rights, leading to potentially confusing legal precedents.

This case is reminiscent of previous attempts by animal rights advocates, notably the Nonhuman Rights Project, to secure rights for animals. A notable instance involved a petition for habeas corpus rights for an elephant named Happy, which was ultimately rejected by the state’s highest court.

As society continues to evolve in its perception of animals, the legal framework surrounding pets must also adapt. However, it is critical to maintain a clear distinction between human and animal rights to ensure that laws regarding emotional distress and personal injury remain grounded in established legal principles. Ending with a focus on responsible pet ownership, society must strive to protect and care for pets while recognizing their distinct status within the legal system.

Media News Source