The plaintiffs claim that reimbursement for the dog's adoption fee, veterinary bill, and the cost of cremation would fail to take adequate account of what the loss of their companion animal has meant to their lives. They are making a claim for emotional distress.
Colb comments that -
In some ways, the civil damages remedy that the Scheeles are requesting for their suffering as a result of Shadow's death resembles the relief available to parents in Vermont (and elsewhere) when someone kills their child – a damages award that includes the emotional distress and grief that follows from a wrongful death.She goes on to note that "some proponents of animal welfare argue that such an award would represent progress for the status of non-human animals, perhaps leading some day to a world in which nonhuman animals have rights", albeit attenuated rights.
One might ask what greater evidence there could be that the law values a nonhuman animal than a requirement that a defendant pay a plaintiff substantial money damages for the loss of the animal's company? Indeed, as some critics of the "loss of companionship" claim have pointed out, grandparents in Vermont are unable to recover emotional distress damages for the loss of their grandchild. Could it be, then, that Vermont law might value dogs more than it does grandchildren?
One might characterize Vermont law in this way, but only if one were to ignore virtually everything about how human beings treat nonhuman animals – including dogs – and focus exclusively on the potential award of damages for the loss of companionship.
