Home
Guest Posts
Print|Email|Text Size: ||
Damages for Negligent Death of Pet in Colorado
Key decision but not a precedent

We all share this nightmare: somehow, our beloved dog gets out of the house, runs into the street…and is tragically hit by a car. Now imagine that awful scenario being the result of someone else’s negligence. That’s what happened to a Colorado family. Last summer, Robin Lohre’s dog Ruthie was killed after being hit by a car. Ruthie escaped the family’s home while a cleaning service was working in the home and Robin had left to run an errand. To make matters worse, the cleaning service employee knew it happened, found the dog and brought her inside, laid her underneath the dining table, and left—without ever calling Robin or a vet, or even leaving a note.

Robin and her seven-year-old daughter Imogene were devastated by the loss of Ruthie.

Lohre sued Posh Maids, the cleaning service, for negligence and emotional distress. Colorado, like so many other states, considers pets to be property. Usually, when someone negligently damages your property—say, your car—you can sue only for the replacement cost. However, in recent years, attorneys across the country have been making inroads, expanding the animal law specialty and pushing the envelope with regard to how our legal system looks at pets. When someone suffers a loss like the Lohre’s, suits for emotional distress seek to address the true wrong suffered—the loss of the human-canine bond and companionship—even if the state’s statutes don’t specifically provide for those damages.

In Lohre’s case, the defendant never responded to the lawsuit, so a default judgment for the full claim of $65,000 plus interest was entered. While on the surface this is a great financial result for the Lohre and her attorney, it’s too soon to celebrate. First, since the case didn’t go to trial and a judge didn’t render a decision, the case doesn’t provide the sort of legal precedent that others later can use for their own cases. Second, we lawyers have a saying: judgments are easy to get but hard to collect. Given that the defendant was a small business owner who didn’t hire an attorney to respond to the suit, my guess is that she won’t pay, and may even file bankruptcy to avoid payment.

Still, I see the case as a victory for this most basic reason: it publicizes the idea that our pets are more than simple property. They are our invaluable companions, and the law should treat them as such. The case is also a heads up to all businesses that send employees into peoples’ homes to provide a service: be as mindful of the family pet as you would a human child.

Here’s ABC’s full report:

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player
Print|Email
Rebecca Wallick is an attorney and a Bark contributing editor; she and her dogs live in Washington.

Thumbnail photos: screenshots from ABC report.

CommentsPost a Comment
Please note comments are moderated. After being approved your comment will appear below.
Submitted by KJMoss | April 23 2012 |

"..... to businesses that send employees into peoples' homes... be mindful of the family pet as you would a human child." AND to people who have pets and have businesses that come into your home... would you leave your human child to run loose and expect the plummer or cleaning service to make sure they don't get out or get hurt??? I don't. I have a bedroom door that locks so that no one accidentally lets my cat out, and a kennel that is safe for my dog. I would rather never find out what it was like to go through what this family did in the loss of their beloved pet. Let us ALL take responsibility to keep our animals safe.

More in Guest Posts:
Spice's Amazing Transformation
Career Moves
Timmy's Amazing Transformation
Learn How To Train Dogs at ClickerExpo 2015
Defusing Awkward Situations
From the Streets to the Gallery, All Thanks to the Dog
Jedi Surfs
This Dog Loves Guitar!
Play Ball
Hope Needs a Forever Home