ANIMAL LAW
I. DEFINING ANIMAL
II. TORTS
III. PROPERTY
IV. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
V. CRIMINAL LAW
VI. ANIMAL WELFARE ACT
VII. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
VIII. MISC.
I) DEFINING ANIMAL:Arbitrary delineation. Answer often crucial to outcome of cases. Holdings are unpredictable and often counterintuitive.
1) Roosters (and Cockfighting: States all over the place)
(a) NM: yes
(b) OK: no
2) Goldfish
(a) MA: yes
3) Deer
(a) NM: no
4) Bird, Rats and Mice
(a) Research Facilities (Federal): No
(b) CA & most states: Yes
B) Reasonable Person Standard: Would average Joe know this was an animal? Lock (OK 1963) (p. 35): Rooster not animal because average person wouldn’t consider it so.
C) Domestic versus Wild: Decisions often based on historic perspective and result-oriented. Leads to difficult in advising clients on likely outcome. Often varies state-by-state. Economic interests protected by courts. May also depend on where we live and what year it is.
1) Judging Species v. Individual Animal: Most courts will look at species as whole, not individual animal.
(a) Individual: City of Rolling Meadows (IL 1986) (p. 57) re monkey is exception. Upside is looking as animal as individual, which is revolutionary. Downside is that may be endangered animal and should not be kept as pet. Issue that domestic animal can also be made wild again.
(b) Species: Gallic v. Barto (PA 1993) (p. 61): Ferrets judged as species. Wild with domestic tendencies. Turns to history of animal used by people for hunting. Case doesn’t outlaw possession of ferret, but these kinds of decisions lead to statutes outlawing them.
(i) Turkey
Þ MI: domestic
(ii) Cow
Þ LA: domestic (insurance issue)
(iii)Cat
Þ PA: Not domestic
(iv)Dog:
Þ PA: Domestic
(v) Monkey
Þ IL: Domestic
(vi)Ferrets:
Þ PA: wild (with domestic tendencies)
II) TORTS(Chapter 3): No controlling law.
A) Somewhere Between Animal and Property: These cases are demonstrating/grappling with traditional notions of market value v. non-property view that animals are person-minus or property-plus. On both sides, there’s agreement that they’re different. Attempt to break mold. Can work from within system. Notion that animals have inherent value.
B) Suffering of Animal: To argue for suffering of animal itself is a losing tactic. These cases are m
unt significance of dog-master relationship.
(b) Defenses: Really just NIED.
(c) Not a lot of caselaw on this point, but not a point courts would be totally averse to adopting because of intentional act, therefore awarding tort-like damages. Usually not ED damages for property. ED component in these cases is the idea to education and increase appreciation of connection between animals and people, not to get money (special relationship between people and animals that’s greater, animals somewhere between people and property).
3) Wrongful Withholding of Property/Wrongful Disposition of Body
(a) Corso (NY 1979) (p. 119): Vet failed to turnover remains to funeral home. Delivered cat instead. Court said pet more tha property, less than person. P entitled to damages based on value of do beyond FMV since dog already dead when tort committed and normally P entitled to nothing because do worth nothing dead. Animals are “special.” Reject Heirloom Value.
