Replacement cost varies depending on the breed. If you have a mutt, or a generic cat, it might be $50, whatever an adoption costs. If you have a purebreed lab, it might be $2000. I’m not saying it’s right, in fact we probably debated it in law school. I just remember that this is what the law historically has said. Given that the goal of tort law is to make the injured party whole, if an animal that is a sentimental object of affection for a person is damaged, it would take more than the replacement cost to make the injured party whole. So I would not be adverse to revisiting the law. But I also would not want to see million dollar verdicts because someone’s cat got run over, either. There could be a middle ground for causing harm to a family pet, and there could be a requirement that vet expenses are paid.
Thanks for the explanation.