Posted on 05/09/2005 6:46:54 AM PDT by MississippiMasterpiece
To do a proper job of that, we'd need to look at the court records for the case. Clearly, there was some basis for the judgment; I don't claim to know what it is.
That being said, I'm confident that there were objective criteria which were applied by the court.
On the contrary, there can be. Please recall the O.J. Simpson case, wherein Mr. Simpson was judged not guilty by a criminal court, and subsequently held liable by a civil court.
The only problem is that a convicted murderer may not have any money to seize - otherwise, you'd see more civil suits.
I think the amount of the judgment is excessive, but at the same time, I have no patience for someone whose dog "repeatedly" escaped from his yard to cause havoc. People who are not going to be responsible for pets should not have them, period. If the dog had escaped for the first time and this happened, I'd feel differently, but it sounds as if the guy just never bothered to repair his fence. There should be some means of resolving it. Maybe at a minimum his dog(s) should be confiscated and not returned to him? What is he going to say, oh, that's so cruel to deprive me of my pet? That's the fate his irresponsibility inflicted on his neighbor. Of course, people like that generally just get another pet. I think perhaps a Court order banning him from having any pets at that property would be fair.
Great news, certainly! If only the shafting could be more severe...
Doesn't the absurdity of that register to you at all.
But I don't regard it as absurd. I think it's a correct decision by a just court.
It's exactly like accidentally backing over someone's garbage can and having to pay $25,000 in damages.
You equate the cat with an inanimate object, a position consistent with your previous posts. I non-concur. So did the court.
Gratuitous high five implemented.
According to the sign the cat was born in Israel. Was the cat Jewish or Muslim. Maybe a hate crime?
That being said, I'm confident that there were objective criteria which were applied by the court.
Why are you so confident in the judge? And may I ask why you come down so strongly on the side of the plaintiff in this case, especially when you yourself admit you don't know what the basis of the judgement was. It just comes across like you have a vested interest in or an inherent bias towards this case. You seem to accept at face value that this was perfectly OK.
Uh, no, there are often "wrongful death" civil proceedings when the guilty party has money. See OJ and a number of others.
Don't waste your time with morons even very tiny little ones.
Last week, Seattle District Court Judge Barbara Linde ordered the dog's owner to pay $45,480.12 to Roemer for the cat's death
Will somebody please come kill my cat... I'll split the money with you.
There's that absolutely gorgeous cat of yours again! Just beautiful.....sorry I've forgotten his name.
She probably just totalled up her cat food, vet bills, and other cat expenditures to arrive at that total. Animals are surprisingly expensive to keep - my cat has cost me $2500 in vet bills alone in the last 18 months. A "replacement" cat is likely to incur similar (to her old cat's) vetrinary expense, so that is a reasonable assumption of replacement value, in addition to the purchase/importation value of the cat. The idea of this kind of lawsuit is to have your loss due to the other party's negligence be "made whole", in other words, all the money you spent on the item of property to enhance its value or to maintain its value must be taken into account when determining the actual "replacement price".
It was the same with my recent car crash case - the amount we asked for was based upon replacement value of the car as determined by the fair market price of an identical-model, similar-condition vehicle plus all of the (documented) modifications made to it. My lawyer's fees were taken into account. Also, the loss of use of the vehicle was taken into account (x dollars per day vehicle was not operational due to negligent idiot, etc, etc.). As in this case, the other party, an insurance company, did not show up. Oh well, their loss, I got what I wanted and the award was certainly reasonable.
I don't see that $45K is an irrational award with my cat-owning and legal system experience.
I'd also add that if the guy had showed up, he could have stated reasons why the award should have been lower, offered to settle out of court, or even had the judgement limited to "a replacement cat and legal fees".
It is financially dangerous to go to court when you are being sued, but it is both financially dangerous and *stupid* to not show up, as Home Depot found out.
I disagree with that definition of replacement value (while acknowledging that it may be a legally correct one). The vet bills, cat food and other routine expenses would have been incurred with either the old cat or a new one. They are not additional expenses precipitated by the loss of the old cat.
Likewise, if someone totals my car, I expect enough money to buy a new one (including inflation, etc.), but I don't expect money to pay for my gas, oil changes, tuneups, etc., because those are expenses I would have had anyway.
Exactly. The dog should be shot and he should pay the costs for it. But 45K is far to much for a cat
I can only assume that you are a twisted PETA type person.
I see no problem with someone taking down people who are trying to take him down. The courts are out of control
I was simplifying a bit - regular, commonsense maintenance that would be common to both the original property and any replacement are generally not covered, but extraordinary maintenance costs (a documented new/rebuilt engine and transmission in a car, for example) are - if you are talking about defensible amounts when calculating an award. You wouldn't want to have your 1998 Jaguar that you just put a new engine in replaced by a 1998 Jaguar with a 100,000 mile old engine, would you? No, that wouldn't be a fair replacement.
In the case of a cat, things like chipping (the microchip ID thing), spaying/neutering (and not by the amateurs at the SPCA), and declawing (something I disagree with, but which is done by many cat owners) are all "supernormal" expenses that would have to be spent to bring the "replacement cat" up to the "spec" of the old one. All of them cost a significant amount of money - the operations I just mentioned can easily run over $1500 depending on the vet and the locale. "Normal" vaccinations and food would not normally be a defensible claim item.
Also, remember that if the other party is not there to dispute your claims, it is legal to claim all your expenditures, period. It is the responsibility of the defendant to point out why a judgement is actually excessive. All the judge is supposed to do is look at your claim and determine if it is fair or not. Remember, this wasn't a jury trial, where 12 random people can choose ridiculous amounts. She had to come up with some factual basis for her claim and she did. The fact that some of it would have been stricken if the other party had been there to object does not invalidate her request.
For the record, I didn't include costs of normal maintenance in my recent court case, much to the dismay of my lawyer. However, I don't have a problem with someone else doing so if the other person is too stupid to show up. Call it a stupidity tax.
"Now where is my cat gonna get $50?
Will somebody please come kill my cat... I'll split the money with you.
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.