http://www.dangerousdoglaw.com

Replevin Value Allegation

The value allegation in the Replevin complaint is important.  It is from this allegation the court decides what bond the government will have to post if they decide they want to keep the dog.  Unfortunately, in Florida, dogs are property, and as a result, the government will argue that the value of the dog is simply the fair market value.  Unless a dog is a show dog or service dog, it is difficult to ethically allege any substantial value to the dog.

Instead, argue intrinsic value.  Have the owner calculate how much they have spent on the dog, for food, shelter and medical care. Add in the legal expenses that have been spent and the client is going to spend to save the dog.  Prepare an affidavit attesting to the value of the dog and have it ready for the hearing if you need it. If the government does not show an interest in keeping the dog, you won't need it. The judge may or may not agree with this theory, but it is the best you can do.

I could only find one case that discusses this issue, and only in the context of breach of an oral agreement to return a dog to a nonmarital partner:

Houseman v. Dare, 966 A2d 24 (N.J. Sup. Ct 2009) - The court held that specific performance was the appropriate remedy, because a dog has subjective and intrinsic value to the owner. The court cited Hyland v. Borras, 719 A.2d 662 (N.J. App. Div. 1998) where an owner was allowed to recover the costs of treatment exceeding replacement value, and Morgan v. Kroupa, 702 A.2d 630 (Vt. 1997).

Florida Cases supporting Intrinsic Value

Levine v. Knowles, 197 So2d 329 (3rd DCA 1967), the court stated: “It would appear, therefore, that an owner has the same right of action to recover compensatory damages for the intrinsic value, if any, of a dead dog wrongfully destroyed, that he would have for any other property wrongfully destroyed.”  (Emphasis added.) Id. at 331.  Thus, Florida law governing the concept of intrinsic value is relevant.

First National Bank v. Mackenzie, 131 So. 790, 791 (S. Ct. 1931) - Courts have long recognized that personal property can have a value to the owner greater than fair market value.  This is particularly true when the property “(i)s of such peculiar and intrinsic value to the owner that its loss cannot be compensated adequately in damages.”   

Florida Public Utilities v. Wester, 7 So2d 788 (S.Ct. 1942) - In trying to value family heirlooms that had been destroyed, the court said, “In fact, it may be very valuable so far as the owner is concerned, but have no value so far as the public is concerned. It would be manifestly unfair to apply the test of market value in such cases.  Id. at 382. 

Reynolds v. Towne Management, 426 So2d 1011 (2nd DCA 1983) - The court cited with approval Florida Public Utilities, supra, and upheld plaintiffs evaluation of the worth of her property saying, “The trial judge, we think, was correct in receiving plaintiff’s testimony because where personal effects have been destroyed the court must apply a test that will allow such evidence of value as will enable a jury to reasonable compensate the person wronged. Id. at 1013.  

Christopher Advertising v. R & B, 883 So2d 867, 871 (3rd DCA 2004) - The Third District stated, “A person tortiously deprived of property is entitled to damages based upon its special value to him if that is greater than its market value.” The court again cited to Florida Public Utilities, supra, with approval.   They also cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 927, comment c.

Wertman v. Tipping, 166 So.2d 666 (1st DCA 1964) - Court declined to apply the fair market value of a pet and held that recovery could include special or pecuniary value to the owner.

Cases discussing Intrinsic value for death of a pet

Small Dog Rescue v. McKenney, SOM-L864-04 (N.J. Superior 2004) - In denying a Motion to Dismiss, Judge Ashrafi stated “In this case the Court concludes that the plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to prove damages other than the alleged market value of Baxter, that is the intrinsic value of Baxter to them…” Id. 

Is There Such a Thing as Veterinarian Malpractice, 45 New Jersey Lawyer, August 2005.

Mieske v. Bartell Drug Co., 593 P.2d 1308 (Wash. 1979) - The court held that the concept of actual value to the owner obviously includes some element of sentiment…” Id. at 1311. 

Brouseau v. Rosenthal, 443 NYS2nd 285 (N.Y.Civ.Ct. 1980) - The court allowed recovery for the actual value to the dog’s owner since the dog had no ascertainable market value.

Jankowski v. Preiser, 510 NE2d 1084 (1^st Dist Ill. 1987) - In a veterinarian malpractice case, the court held that the damages to be applied to a dog who had died as a result of defendant’s negligence, was the dog’s actual value to the owner, including sentimental value, citng with approval to Mieske, supra.

Anzalone v. Kragness, 826 NE 2^nd 472 (1^st Dist Ill 2005) - Cited with approval Jankowski, supra, and affirmed the “value to the owner” computation of damages.

Bluestone v. Bergstrom, No. 00CC00796 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Orange C0. 2003) -  Upholding a judgment of $39,000 which included special or unique value damages.

In Defense of Floyd: Appropriately Valuing Companion Animals in Tort, 70 NYU L. Rev. 1059, 1081-1083  (1995) - Also confirms the concept of intrinsic value.

Determining the Value of Companion Animals in Wrongful Harm or Death Claims - A Survey of U.S. Decisions And An Argument for the Authorization To Recover For The Loss of Companionship in Such Cases, Michigan State University College of Law 2007 by Marcella S. Roukas. 

Florida cases discussing a companion animal AS MORE THAN PROPERTY

La Porte v. Associated Independents, 163 So2d 267, 269 (Fla.S.Ct. 1964) - Florida has long recognized that a pet is more than mere property. “(T)he affection  of a master for his dog is a very real thing and…the malicious destruction of the pet provides an element of damage for which the owner should recover, irrespective of the value of the animal.” 

Paul v. Oseola County, 388 So2d 40 (5th DCA 1980) - “(W)e are mindful that anyone who has enjoyed the companionship and affection of a pet will often spend far in excess of any possible market value to maintain or prolong its life, therefore the motive for redress is equally strong.” Id

other jurisdictions discussing a companion animal as more than property

Morgan v. Kroupa, 702 A2nd 630, 633 (1997) - “(A) dog is an inherently social creature whose value derives from the animal’s relationship with its human companions.” In a concurring opinion, the learned Judge Andell aptly stated:

Many people who love and admire dogs as family members do so because of the traits the dogs often embody. These represent some of the best human traits including loyalty, trust, courage, playfulness and love. This cannot be said of inanimate property. At the same time, dogs typically lack the worst human traits, including avarice, apathy, pettiness and hatred…..We now know that mammals share with us a great many emotive and cognitive characteristics, and that the higher primates are very similar to humans neurologically and genetically….Society has long since moved beyond the untenable Cartesian view that animals are unfeeling automatons and hence mere property…The law should reflect society’s recognition that animals are sentient and emotive beings that are capable of providing companionship to the humans with whom they live…..(A) great number of people in this country today treat their pets as family members. Indeed for many people, pets are the only family members they have. Losing a beloved pet is not the same as losing an inanimate object, however cherished it might be. Even an heirloom of great sentimental value, if lost, does not constitute a loss comparable to that of a living being. This distinction applies even though the deceased in a nonhuman living being. 

Bueckner v. Hamel, 886 SW2d 368, 377 (Tex.Ct.App. 1994). 

Seidner v. Dill, 206 NE2d 636 (App.Ct.Ind. 1965) - The court referred to some literary descriptions of dogs:

The best human friend a man has in the world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps, when he needs it most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. 

The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deceives him, the one that never proves ungrateful and treacherous, is his dog.  A man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground where the wintry wind blows and the snow drifts fiercely, if only he may be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens….When death takes the master….there by the graveside may the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even in death. Id. at 647.