The legislation differs from current civil law statutes, which limit pet owners to the right to litigate for economic damages only.
Neil Cohen, the Assembly Deputy Speaker, introduced the Bill in the New Jersey State assembly after finding several brands of the recalled pet food still on store shelves in New Jersey.About 100 brands of pet food manufactured by Menu Foods of Canada were ordered recalled back in March after the food was found to be contaminated with melamine, an industrial binding agent that's toxic to animals and can result in kidney failure. Scores of treasured pets were sickened, and many died after eating contaminated pet food.
Under U.S. law, pets are classified as property, and while there are provisions for criminal charges if a pet is abused, current civil law only allows pet owners the right to sue for economic damages if a pet is harmed, or dies.
The new legislation, if enacted in New Jersey as it has in Tennessee and Illinois, would grant plaintiffs the right to sue pet food manufacturers, producers or distributors of adulterated pet foods, or any other person or persons who might have contributed to the contamination that may have caused, or led to a pet's illness or death.
The proposed Bill would also clear the way for compensation over loss of companionship, costs of veterinary care, training, and any other unique value the pet may have had. A show dog, for example.
A cap of $15,000 would be placed on total damages payable.
According to an article published this month in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, pet owners have been in for a rude awakening when they discover just how low animals - including pets - are positioned in the eyes of the law. Pets have been shown to contribute high value to their owners overall, and a unique value in certain circumstances. There has been a push to reflect that value in legislation.
Therapy dogs, for example, are known to represent a source of real comfort to sick, frail or elderly patients. Guide dogs are yet another example of animals which perform a valued service.
Currently, there are at least 50 class-action lawsuits filed against Menu Foods, and there may be more given the scope of the recall, and the number of pet owners affected. In the beginning of June the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed more than 4,000 reports of pet deaths in the wake of the Menu Foods recall, and the FDA is currently in the process of wading through a backlog of 21,000 calls.
One of those calls may well have come from Judy Brendle of Voluntown, Connecticut who wrote to IAMS, one of the brands affected. Brendle's 13-year-old cat refused to eat her wet cat back in February, and within a day the cat was dead.
Brendle wrote to IAMS, indicating her belief that their product killed her cat, and that she would not be purchasing their products ever again.
IAMS replied with a form letter and a $2 coupon for cat food.
Little wonder that consumers suspect pet food manufacturers as harbouring little interest in their pets beyond the business bottom line.
READ MORE LEGAL NEWS
Veterinary associations oppose the idea of non-economic rewards for pet injury or death; the American Veterinary Medical Association, for one, fears that the proposed New Jersey legislation will drive up the costs of veterinary care, and could lead to frivolous lawsuits.While Cohen's bill was motivated by the tainted pet food recall and targets that specific circumstance, some like the New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association feel that the legislation could open the door for other loss-of-companionship lawsuits, such as vaccine reaction or an unsuccessful surgery. Time will tell.
However, as pet owners continue to challenge existing laws which place their pets no higher up the importance scale than a coffee table, and as more States bring in legislation clearing the way for the right to seek non-economic damages, the pets will finally have their day in court.
More than 60 million cans and pouches of suspect pet food were recalled on March 16th of this year.
