[BlackRazor]

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.

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.

[US admirer]

Don't waste your time with morons even very tiny little ones.

[Spktyr]

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.

[Spktyr]

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.

[neutrino]

It just comes across like you have a vested interest in or an inherent bias towards this case.

I do have an inherent bias. I like cats.