A case that could have established new legal doctrines regarding dogs…

 …was ended last week with the Vermont Supreme Court ruling that owners of a dog shot to death can’t claim damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship.

This case goes back to 2003 when Denis and Sarah Scheele and Shadow, their mixed breed dog, were visiting relatives in Vermont.

During the visit Shadow wandered into the yard of neighbor, Lewis Dunstan, 76. He shot an air pellet rifle to scare the dog away, but a one in a million shot entered Shadow’s chest and severed the aorta.

Dunstan has always insisted he was only trying to shoo the dog away and didn’t mean to kill him. He pleaded guilty to animal cruelty, a misdemeanor, and was given one year probation and 100 hours of community service. He was also ordered to pay the Scheeles $4000 to cover veterinarian bills and cremation.

But the Scheeles say that wasn’t enough, equating Shadow to the loss of a child. They wrote on their website: "Shadow was our little boy, our son, our child. We loved him as if he were our own flesh and blood."

In 2006 they filed a court case seeking $6000 for “emotional distress” and loss of the “solace, affection, friendship, and love” that they shared with Shadow.

When they lost the lower court case, they took it to the Vermont Supreme Court where last week they again lost their case.

While we can understand their love for Shadow and their desire to show that a dog is more than property, it would seem that the time to move on might have been seven years ago.

Comments

[Karen Friesecke]

I find it funny that a woman who get a tiny burn from a McDonald's coffee can sue AND win 100 million dollars, but folks that had their dog killed can't win a court case over the emotional distress over losing their dog to a stupid neighbour.

[Wendy]

Isn't it shameful that they talk about the dog as their child but failed to keep it off of another persons property? No, the pellet gun shooter was not right in his actions, but I think the couple should take responsibility in their part too; had Shadow been on a lead and supervised things would might have been extremely uneventful (and with a much happier outcome)

It makes me sad just to say that.

[YesBiscuit!]

Yes a dog is not a child but, particularly to childless owners, a dog may be the closest they come to having that maternal/paternal feeling. I can understand the sentiment.

[jackie]

if you love your dog, be a responsible owner and keep it on a leash.

[Dennis the Vizsla]

Nobody wins in this situation, especially not the dog.

[Tammy]

This is a tough one - I can completely understand how a childless person/couple could equate a pet with a child. I do it myself to some extent, although not to this extreme.

I personally think (opinion here) that the Scheeles took this case WAY too far. Yes, it was a tragedy, and yes, it was wrong of the neighbor to shoot the dog. They had some responsibility too, in that their dog wasn't supposed to be in his yard. My guess is that grief and guilt played a huge role in their decision to press this all the way to the supreme court.

[the 4Bs]

we kind of agree with you, although our mom totally understands the bond of love between humans and their dogs. it sounds like the human didn't mean to kill the dog, but there are other ways to make a dog leave your yard other than shooting it. anyway, he was punished and it's all just very sad.

[cube]

This wouldn't have even been an issue had they kept tabs on their 'child'. I can't imagine letting my children OR my dogs run around loose in someone else's yard. Is the neighbor an idiot for shooting a dog, yeah, but it isn't worth the millions this couple was trying to earn. I'm so sick of the litigious nature of so many in our society.