[neutrino]

the cat was property and the owner should be reimbursed the exact amount she had it insured for up to $500. (as no cat is worth more than that)

Clearly, the court disagreed. I applaud the court's decision.

Judgements like this are what lead to little old ladies houses being burned down.

Are you suggesting that the dog owner would engage in criminal activities such as arson and attempted murder? I wouldn't doubt it.

After all if the innocent dog owner (he didn't kill the cat after all) has his life ruined for a minor animal control violation he may as well take someone down with him.

No, not innocent. Rather, guilty of negligence, an established legal concept.

Furthermore, were he to decide to "take someone down with him", it would indicate that he had latent criminal tendencies. Why coddle such potential murderers?

I mean it's not like he shot the property.

So, if a drunk driver passed out at the wheel, and his car smashed into your nearest and dearest, you would advocate that he be excused? After all, he didn't consciously kill them - he was asleep at the wheel.

No, the court decided wisely. I do hope that the judgment is executed diligently.

[Tungenchek]

Sheesh this guy is lucky... this cat owner went to court instead of hiring a hit man or something... LOL

I know several old ladies..including my mom (88yrs old) who would have beat the dog and dog owner to death with her walking stick.. :o)

[John O]

The guy is getting shafted for a cat. Doesn't the absurdity of that register to you at all. It's exactly like accidently backing over someone's garbage can and having to pay $25,000 in damages.

[BlackRazor]

I applaud the court's decision.

How do you justify the amount of the award, though -- $45,000. Why not $4,500? Why not $450,000? How do you arrive at that particular figure? Shouldn't there be some objective criteria for making awards? I can't find any in this case.