1999-05-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

having several provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act struck down." B. Improper search and seizure In cases where enforcement officers entered on a person's property in order to inspect or capture an animal without a warrant, the animal control owner may request section 1983 damages. Again, because it may be possible for an animal owner to obtain attorney's fees (making the suit very expensive) if an enforcement officer conducts a warrantless search of the owner's premises, the enforcement officer should seek a warrant prior to entering onto an animal owner's premises. C. Injury or death of animal The failure to:1) provide humane care to a seized animal; 2) maintain adequate records; or 3) wait and provide notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the disposition of an animal may be punishable as misdemeanor. A pet owner may also file a civil law tort action against the City if the City has harmed or killed the pet. Damages for negligence claims regarding injuries or death to an animal are limited to the fair market value of the property. Thus, in theory at least, the potential recovery by a pet owner is minimal. However, pet owners, who view their pet as a family member often seek damages beyond fair market value. Damages have been sought under U.S.C. § 1983; including punitive damages and money damages for pain, suffering or emotional distress. Other states have allowed the pet owner to recover on these types of claims, recognizing that the pet owner held a special relationship with his/her pet 92 In Minnesota, however, it is questionable whether a pet owner would be entitled to such remedies. While modem courts recognize the special role pets have within the family unit, pets are nonetheless property and fair market value continues to be the limit on damages. Even if the court were to recognize such damages, it is generally difficult to succeed with a negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. To be successful the plaintiff must show: • the conduct was extreme and outrageous; • the conduct was intentional or reckless; • the conduct caused emotional distress; and • the distress was severe 95 The emotional distress suffered must have physical manifestations in addition to being severe 9 Therefore, emotional distress felt by one who has lost a pet would probably not rise to the level of severity required by case law. VCLOSII^\' A \ttIORALMMOTEHOOA`AA'AILILCO. X' PO 67 CW!niM Leapt of M! W(Cilitt C 1999