
Argument for an Animals’ Intrinsic Value
Martinez v. Robledo; Workman v. Klause
The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed amicus briefs in two consolidated California cases, in which the issue at stake was whether a plaintiff could recover veterinary expenses if those expenses exceeded the market value of the animal.
Status
Next Step
Case Closed
In 2012, the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed amicus briefs in two consolidated California cases, in which the issue at stake was whether a plaintiff could recover veterinary expenses if those expenses exceeded the market value of the animal.
Martinez v. Robledo involved a dog who was shot and wounded by the defendant, leading to the plaintiff seeking to recover $20,789.81 in veterinarian bills along with punitive damages. In Workman v. Klause, a veterinarian was sued for the $37,766.06 it cost to repair a dog’s botched surgery.
The trial courts in both cases limited damages to the dogs’ “market value.” On appeal, the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed amicus briefs arguing that the plaintiffs should be able to recover the costs spent to nurse the animals back to health where their injuries were caused by the defendant, even if the plaintiff spent more on vet care than the animal was “worth” on the open market.
The briefs contended that capping veterinary expenses at the animal’s market value fails to recognize animals’ true value to their companions.
California’s 2nd Appellate District Court of Appeal agreed, ruling in 2012 that recovery is not limited to their animals’ market value, but rather that the plaintiffs may recover the “reasonable and necessary costs incurred for the treatment and care of the pet attributable to the injury.”
In doing so, the court recognized that “animals are special, sentient beings, because unlike other forms of property, animals feel pain, suffer and die… Animals are a distinct and specially protected form of property.”
Recent News
-
Argentine Court Recognizes Visitation Agreement for Dogs in Divorce Settlement
This decision is significant because it handled the care of companion animals within a divorce framework with recognition they are sentient beings who are members of a multispecies family, rather than mere property.August 24, 2023 Animal Law Update -
Massachusetts: Ask your legislators to support Ollie’s Law
Ask your legislators to support An Act to Increase Kennel Safety, or Ollie’s Law (S. 1309/H. 2019) -
Washington Supreme Court Urged to Consider the True Value of Humans’ Relationship with Companion Animals
Animal Legal Defense Fund’s amicus brief urges the court to review a case regarding the negligent death of a dog and the resulting emotional damagesJune 5, 2023 Press Release
Related Cases
-
Fight for Animals’ Intrinsic Value In Wrongful Death of Dog
Barking Hound Village v Monyak
-
Urging the Court to Consider Animals’ Value
Sherman v. Kissinger; Sexton v. Brown; Brinton v. Codoni
Looking for case and legal resources? View Resources
See MoreYou Can Protect Animals
Since 1979, the Animal Legal Defense Fund has led the charge to win animals the legal protection they so desperately need—and deserve. Your generous gift will assure that we can continue to take on cases that advance the interests of animals.