If you think of Rover and Fluffy as members of the family, you may figure you could collect damages for pain and suffering if they were to die as a result of wrongdoing.
The law in California and many other states sees things differently. It treats pets as personal property, just like cars and computers.
But that could be changing.
Lawsuits filed in the last week by owners of dogs and cats felled by contaminated pet food could press lawmakers and courts to upgrade pets' legal status. The food, produced by Menu Foods of Canada, is believed to be responsible for the deaths of dozens of dogs and cats nationwide.
"You'll see a lot of pressure on legislators to remove liability barriers, to not see these animals as property but as entities like humans," said Jon Katz, the author of several books on the changing relationship between dogs and people.
Some barriers have already been removed. Appellate court decisions in at least six states permit damages for emotional distress in some instances, said Alan Calnan, who teaches product liability law at Southwestern Law School.
Though California isn't among the six, Beverly Hills lawyer Kenneth Phillips says several pet-owner clients have collected for pain and suffering. In one case, he negotiated a settlement for a woman with muscular dystrophy who was distraught after her dog was attacked by another and died. And in a 2004 malpractice case in Orange County, a jury awarded owners of a rescue dog $30,000 for its unique emotional value, on top of $9,000 in vet bills.
What's more, the state of Rhode Island and several cities, including West Hollywood, Berkeley and San Francisco, have legally defined pet owners as "guardians" -- in effect equating animals with children, which is how many people regard their pets.
"Brutus was very special. He was my companion; he was my best bud; he was with me 24 hours a day," San Clemente resident Catherine Golden, 46, said of her cat, who died of kidney failure after eating the tainted food. "All of our cats have always been members of the family. I don't have any children, so I love my cats seriously."
For all that, Katz warns that granting pets human-like legal status could create troublesome consequences for veterinarians, pet food and toy companies, shelter operators and perhaps even pet owners themselves. Higher damage awards for malpractice could lead to unnecessary testing and higher vet fees. And clothing animals with human-like status might eventually limit an owner's ability to decide to euthanize a suffering pet.
