Posted on 12/21/2014 12:58:37 PM PST by Slings and Arrows
A Maryland Appeals Court judge handed down a verdict awarding emotional damages payment be given to a family that had their dog shot and killed by one of its deputies. The original verdict did state that the officers did intend to cause harm, and based on that the family was allowed to collect $200,000.
The decision is a shift in legal precedent. Usually, pets are considered by the court to be “property” and only worth their “fair market value.”
The 42-page court opinion decreased the original amount the family had sought by $400,000. The findings that involved the officers in question trespassing into the family’s home.
Deputy First Class Timothy Brooks and Deputy First Class Nathan Rector were the ones requesting the appeal. In April of 2012, a jury found that Brooks had violated the rights of Roger and Sandi Jenkins. Brooks shot their dog Brandi, a chocolate Lab, while searching for the couple’s son, who was wanted on a civil matter.
It was also decided that both deputies had violated the Jenkins’ rights by entering their home without permission. The deputies entered their home after they had left to take Brandi to a vet in an attempt to save her life.
The first verdict gave $620,000 to the family, which had been adjusted down to $607,500 due to a cap placed on how much can be charged for vet bills. One cannot bill for more than $7,500.
After the appeals process, the total dollar amount awarded to the Jenkins was $400,000. Even though there’s been a reduction in the amount given, the decision has opened up possibilities of collecting damages for killed pets in the future, which was not the norm before.
Doggie ping!
If a K-9 is a police officer, a pet is a family member.
How many dead dogs did it take before this precedent was set?
Yahoo!
In a just world, this money would come out of the police pension fund.
So they were just there to serve papers?
Too many.
Serfs do not show insolence to the King’s Men, sirrah! /sarc
“About damn time.”
This is a start.
“If a K-9 is a police officer, a pet is a family member.”
I like this line of reasoning - this will work in a courtroom.
CAIR will get this overturned at some level.
It’ll be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Those officers were acting in good faith, in the performance of their duties
Great point. Hard to argue against it.
I am going to have my wife and myself declare each other as pets.
Correct-0-mundo
This is not going to stand on appeal, because there is a huge amount of precedent against it. Like it or not, dogs are just short lived chattels. While people might assign tremendous emotional attachment to an animal, there is no just way to place a price tag on it.
“This is not going to stand on appeal, because there is a huge amount of precedent against it. Like it or not, dogs are just short lived chattels. While people might assign tremendous emotional attachment to an animal, there is no just way to place a price tag on it.”
We shall see. It isn’t the dog’s financial value in play here, and emotional damage awards can go pretty high.
In a just world the money would come directly from the officer(s) who did the shooting. Then the officer(s) would get handcuffed and shackled and the dog owner would get 5 minutes with them, unsupervised and behind closed doors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.