[vetvetdoug]

This is insane. The cat was loose. The dog was loose. The dog was at fault, not the owner, so the dog should be held liable for the infraction, not the owner. The dog, having been proved to be a killer, should be put down. If the dog owes any money then the dog should pay for the criminal activity. Now the owner was very irresponsible for letting the dog run loose. The dog killed a cat and there should be a criminal case, not a civil case. Even human murder cases there is only criminal prosecution, not civil case proceedings. I'd say there needs to be an appeal and a judge needs to find a new job.

[neutrino]

Even human murder cases there is only criminal prosecution, not civil case proceedings.

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.

[Spktyr]

Uh, no, there are often "wrongful death" civil proceedings when the guilty party has money. See OJ and a number of others.

[CSM]

Good points. Why is the dog owner considered negligent for the dog running loose, but the cat owner is not also considered negligent for the same thing? If she wanted to properly protect her cat from loose dogs, she should have a fenced in yard. What would she have done if a racoon or skunk killed her cat?