Pets are property under CA law, doesn’t matter how much you love it. The replacement cost from a pet shop is the cap of damages. I could see a larger verdict if the LL slaughtered the animal in front of the tenant or otherwise was cruel and the tenant saw it [emotional distress claim]. But the story says the animal was taken to a shelter and apparently put down - happens every day and performed as a function of government, so that doesn’t explain it. Punitive damages are a function of actual damages [usually 3x cap], according to the US Supremes, so that can’t be it either.
No legal analysis of the explosive headline in the story either.
Maybe OR is different, but I doubt it.
Jury emotionalism is not part of just compensation. This verdict will be thrown out by the sitting judge or overturned on appeal.
This nonsense is what you get when your “peers” are a bunch of blue hairs and beta boys.
You did not read the article did you.
Oregon juries is one of the reasons why Oregon can’t have nice things