Putting a Price on the Love of a Pet
By Joe Wilkes
Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen were a typical Fort Worth couple who had adopted a Labrador mix named Avery from a homeless man eight years ago. They and their two children considered Avery a part of the family, who joined them on camping trips and often slept in their beds. Then one day in the summer of 2009, everything took a tragic turn.
A summer thunderstorm hit the Fort Worth area, and spooked Avery enough that he bolted from the Medlens’ backyard and was picked up by Fort Worth Animal care and Control. The Medlens went to the shelter to get Avery back but didn’t have enough cash with them to pay the fee, so they were forced to return and Avery was given a “hold for owner” tag. When the Medlens returned to pick up Avery though, they were told that due to a mix-up, Avery had ended up on the list of unwanted dogs to be euthanized and had been put to sleep.
Despondent over their loss, the Medlens decided to file suit for negligence against the shelter and the worker who had scheduled Avery for euthanasia, having missed the “hold for owner” instruction. The first court that heard their case cited an 1891 ruling that the animal control center was only liable for the market value of the dog.
Needless to say, Avery’s market value was slim to none. An 8-year-old mutt adopted from a homeless man was not a top-dollar proposition in the current pet market. So the Medlens and their attorney Randy Turner decided to appeal the decision to a higher court, arguing that damages should be awarded based on the sentimental value of Avery to their family. For them, the history and love shared with Avery was irreplaceable and they wanted to make sure what happened to Avery didn’t happen to another pet. Turner discovered a Texas Supreme Court case from 1963 that stated “if personal property is destroyed, even if it doesn’t have market value, owners can sue for intrinsic or sentimental value.”
On November 3, 2011, Judge Lee Gabriel of the Second District of Texas Court of Appeals decided that the Medlens were within their rights to sue. In the ruling he stated “Dogs are unconditionally devoted to their owners,” and that “the special value of man’s best friend should be protected.” Randy Turner said that this is the first time in Texas history that owners may sue for the sentimental value of a pet. Turner (who is representing the Medlens pro bono) said “…more than 50 percent of Americans would risk their lives to save their dog…After Hurricane Katrina, people wouldn’t leave because they wouldn’t leave their dogs or cats. I defy you to find a piece of property that people value more than their pets. It can’t be done.”
The road to justice is not over for the Medlens. They will have to refile their lawsuit in the lower court and the Texas and American Veterinary Medicine Associations, understandably alarmed by the increased liability they face, have indicated that they will appeal the Second District’s ruling.
It will be a long, winding legal road until justice for Avery has been completely served, but a huge step has been taken to ensure that, according to the law, the real value of a pet isn’t determined by a price tag in a pet shop window. And we have heroes like the Medlens and Randy Turner to thank.
