We all love our furry friends, but your dog is not a member of your family under the law — and shouldn’t be treated as such. That is why we must loudly dissent from Brooklyn state Supreme Court Justice Aaron Maslow’s ruling last week.
Here are the facts: A 4-year-old dachshund named Duke was hit by a car and killed on July 4, 2023, while being walked by Nan DeBlase. They were crossing the street when, according to court papers, a driver made a left turn without stopping at the stop sign or signaling.
The outcome was traumatic and tragic for Nan and for her son Trevor, who had every reason to love their little guy with all their hearts. Understandably, they sued the driver — seeking damages for reckless driving.
The problem is that Maslow said Nan DeBlase qualifies for a special kind of payout that has only ever applied to people who see an immediate family member die or suffer when they themselves are also in danger. In the past, the only people eligible for these damages are children, parents, spouses, grandparents or grandchildren — of humans, not animals.
Repeat after us: Dogs aren’t people. All the love in the world doesn’t convert a Canis familiaris into a Homo sapien.
The judge got it right with respect to the damages being sought by Trevor DeBlase; he said that the law could only provide him compensation for the dog’s value, vet bills and other costs directly associated with Duke’s death.
For Nan, her presence at the scene, and the fact that she was holding Duke’s leash when he met his end, had the effect of converting a tragedy into a right to seek broader damages. This represents the triumph of emotion over legal reasoning.
The judge did try to explain himself. Societal norms are shifting, he argued, and so courts need to evolve. He cited a 2021 state law that makes courts consider a pet’s “best interest” in splitting up belongings in divorce proceedings rather than treating pets as pure property. He also pointed to airline policies that now let small dogs travel in cabins with passengers, and a 2016 study finding that many hotels are pet-friendly.
But considering a pet’s wellbeing in determining whether it winds up with an ex-husband or ex-wife is a far cry from effectively counting it as a family member in a court case. And while it’s perfectly nice for businesses to be responsive to their customers’ needs, this ought to have absolutely zero to do with making the legal status of pets tantamount to that of humans.
Three years ago, the same nonprofit involved in the Duke case, the Nonhuman Rights Project, tried and failed to get a Bronx Zoo elephant named Happy habeas corpus rights but the state’s highest court said no. But then-Judge Rowan Wilson, now the chief judge, dissented — wackily saying the court had a responsibility “to recognize Happy’s right to petition for her liberty not just because she is a wild animal who is not meant to be caged and displayed, but because the rights we confer on others define who we are as a society.”
Indeed, the rights we confer on others do define who we are as a society. We should be a society that loves and protects dogs — and not be one that treats them as brothers or sisters or children.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
