Damages

What’s Hot…. Rhode Island Legislation: Hobby Breeders, Sales Tax, and Emotion-based Damages

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

A proposed amendment to Rhode Island statutes regulating cat and dog breeders would increase the number of breeders subject to state licensing while eliminating the dog-only exemption. Senate Bill 325 amends the existing definition of hobby breeder but reduces the number of litters a breeder can sell and avoid classification as a breeder subject to licensing. Legislation on sales taxes and emotion-based damages that could impact fanciers was also introduced this year.

Currently, two statutes address cat breeding. Title 4, Animals and Animal Husbandry, Chapter 24, Permit Program for Cats mandates local issuance and enforcement of breeding permits ONLY for cat breeders unless a local jurisdiction prohibits cat breeding. Enacted in 2006, the statute contains several recognizable requirements, including inspections, standards of care, and immunization. In 2017, a bill establishing comprehensive breeding licensing for cat and dog breeders was enacted, defining breeder and hobby breeder.  Under Rhode Island General Laws §4-19-2 (10), a breeder means:

“a person engaged in the propagation of purebred or crossbred dogs and/or cats for the purpose of improving and enhancing a breed recognized and registered by the American Kennel Club, American Field Stud Book, a registered cat breed association, or for sale at wholesale or retail, unless otherwise exempted as a hobby breeder as defined below.”

 A hobby breeder is defined as:

“those persons whose regular occupation is not the breeding and raising of dogs and cats and whose method of sale is at retail only. A hobby breeder shall not exceed the limits set forth in § 4-25-1(4). Any person who sells at retail a number  in excess of the limits in the aforementioned section shall be considered a breeder.”

The issue arises with the quantitative exemption contained in §4-25-1(4) in which the definition of seller refers solely to dogs. However, both dogs and cats are included in the definition of breeder. Senate Bill 325, if enacted, would amend the definition of hobby breeder to the following:

“those persons whose regular occupation is not the breeding and raising of dogs and cats and whose method of sale is at retail only. A hobby breeder shall not exceed the sale or offering for sale of greater than two (2) litters of dogs or cats, or combination of dogs or cats, in any three hundred and sixty-five (365) day period. Any person who exceeds these limits will be defined as a breeder.”

This would eliminate the §4-25-1(4) dog exemption for persons selling fewer than 20 dogs or three litters, whichever is greater, for the breeder licensing law. Instead, it would impose a two-litter restriction on hobby breeders to avoid being categorized as breeders. Senate Bill 325 has been referred to the Senate Environment and Agriculture Committee.

Another proposed bill, Senate Bill 340, could also have a significant impact on Rhode Island breeders. If enacted, it would add the purchase of animals from a breeder to the many things subject to sales tax. This bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

In other Rhode Island news, House Bill 5926, which would add authority for emotion-based damages to animal cruelty laws if enacted, has been referred for study. While that often means the end of a bill, the Speaker of the House can bring it back for consideration. It should be noted that the speaker is also the bill sponsor. Emotion-based, or noneconomic, damages increase the cost of pet care for all while benefitting the rare few pet owners.

You are the eyes and ears of the cat fancy! Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

CFALegislativeNews: https://www.facebook.com/CFALegislativeNews

CFA Legislative Group Blog:  https://legislative.cfa.org/

Legislation – What’s Hot…All Animal Owners Bear the Brunt of Emotion-Based Damages

 

October 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

When our pets suffer due to the negligent, reckless, or intentional acts of others, it is natural to be angry and seek compensation for those harmful acts. Legislatures often limit that redress to reasonable economic losses – the animal’s fair market value and out-of-pocket expenses. Courts may also award punitive damages to punish the tortfeasor. However, for many years, some groups have sought to expand damages to include emotion-based damages. This year, courts in Idaho, California, and New York, along with the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York legislatures, have all considered this question. Why is awarding emotion-based (non-economic) damages a bad thing in these cases? 

The first part of the answer is easy. Every business defendant will try to recoup the costs of any award. Thus, when the tortfeasor is a business, the ultimate onus falls on all animal owners as the cost of the damages trickles down through increased prices of pet food and supplies, veterinary and other services, and indirect costs such as insurance. A tiny number of owners benefit, but every animal owner pays.

The second part of the answer relates to the purpose of damages in civil suits for accidental or intentional infliction of harm. Economic damage awards are intended to make the plaintiff financially whole. The cost of veterinary care related to the incident is an example of economic damage. Punitive damages are meant to discourage repeat offenses. Recompense for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and the loss of companionship is the role of emotion-based damages, but legislatures strictly limit who may seek such damages. Often, it is limited to the person injured. However, some states have narrowly expanded the class of plaintiffs who may seek non-economic damages, including parents, children, and those with a reasonable expectation of harm to themselves. Siblings, fiancés, and best friends need not apply. While we may consider our animals part of the family, raising their legal status to that of (or above) a human child does not make sense. Pets are already treated differently under the law than other types of personal property with anti-cruelty and minimum standards of care laws. Allowing such more damages brings us back to reason one – increased liability equals increased costs for all animal owners.

State laws specify when emotion-based damages may be awarded. Nonetheless, some advocates try to change the law through litigation as well as legislation. They ask the courts to expand the damages recoverable for injury to a pet, often without any clear limitation. For these reasons, the CFA Board of Directors allowed CFA to join the Animal Health Institute coalition on amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs opposing non-economic damages for animal injury cases in New York and California this year. For more information about the issue of non-economic damages, an article published previously in Cat Talk, “Harming Pets Through the Expansion of Emotion-Based Damages” is located on the CFA Legislative Group blog Resources page here.

You are our eyes and ears! Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

Legislation – What’s Hot…………Compensatory Damages for Delaware Pets is State Law – for Now

 

November 2022

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
Sharon Coleman, CFA Legislative Legal Analyst

Delaware Governor John Carney signed the Senate Substitute Bill SS1 for SB 258 into law on October 14, 2022. The Izzy the Cat Act authorizes courts to award pet owners compensatory, or financial, damages due to negligent, reckless, or malicious injury or death to a pet. It includes amendments to the original bill removing the cap on compensatory damages and the authorization for emotion-based damages for tortious acts. The amendments also add a sunset provision causing the entire Act to expire 3 years after its enactment unless “otherwise provided by a subsequent act of the General Assembly.”

Lawmakers usually limit emotion-based or non-economic damages for a minimal set of circumstances involving the injury or death of a person. In states that authorize these damages, breeders and pet owners could expect increases in direct costs such as veterinary care, boarding, pet food, and supplies. Indirect costs such as homeowners or automobile insurance would also probably increase. Expanding it to pets would have far-ranging consequences for all pet owners for the benefit of a few.

The “Delaware Considers Emotion-based Damages for Pets this Session” discussed SB 258 in the May 2022 What’s Hot.

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . Delaware Considers Emotion-based Damages for Pets this Session

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
Sharon Coleman, CFA Legislative Legal Analyst

May 2022

Delaware is the second state this year to consider non-economic, or emotion-based, damages for pets. Maryland had considered expanding non-economic damages also. However, the author withdrew the Maryland bill, HB 1375, discussed in the March 2022 edition of What’s Hot. Also, the cross-filed Maryland SB 815 did not move out of committee, nor did the related HB 965 that would have increased the existing cap of $10,000 on compensatory damages to $25,000. As with the Maryland bill, Delaware’s SB 258 (cross-filed with SB 815) would have authorized emotion-based damages in cases for tortious injuries, including death, to a pet as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Senator Ernesto Lopez (R-SD 6) explains in the original bills synopsis that current law limits pet owners to the fair market value of the pet. Veterinary bills and other expenses related to treating the injuries arising from a tortious act are not recoverable. Senate Bill 258 would have authorized up to $15,000 for compensatory damages, and the same for emotion-based damages, for a combined maximum of $30,000. The bill does not limit punitive damages. After further consideration of policy issues, on May 11, 2022, the Senate Judiciary Committee  approved a substitute bill removing non-economic damages and the $15,000 cap on compensatory damages.

Of the three types of damages, compensatory damages are awarded to make the plaintiff whole for reasonable financial expenditures. The pet’s fair market value, veterinary expenses, equipment, and other special needs the pet may have short-term or long-term arising from the tortious act are examples of economic damages. In today’s economy, compensatory damages may sometimes rise above the original $15,000 cap. Punitive damages are designed to punish the tortfeasor and discourage them from committing future bad acts. Although paid to the plaintiff, these damages do not make the pet owner whole financially, nor are they designed to compensate them for any emotional distress. A court may award punitive damages when it deems an act egregious – as when a sanitation worker killed a miniature dachshund by throwing a just emptied garbage can at it, then laughs about the act (LaPorte v. Associated Independents, Inc., 163 So. 2d 267, 1 A.L.R.3d 992 (Fla. 1964)).

Non-economic damages, generally for emotional distress but sometimes related emotion-based claims such as pain and suffering may be awarded, if at all, to human plaintiffs who usually are physically injured. In some jurisdictions, these have been awarded to third parties, usually limited to either spouses or children and who may also be required to have been in the “zone of danger” themselves. These limited cases have inspired legislation to codify some acknowledgment of emotion-based damages based on the “pet member of the family” relationship along with economic or punitive damages for pet injuries and deaths. These two latter provisions are reasonable, especially with specific and modest caps. If emotion-based damages were allowed for tortious acts, breeders, and all pet owners, should expect costs of veterinary care, pet food, pet boarding, and other pet care items to increase in price as these costs are passed on to the consumer. Homeowners and automobile insurance premiums and other indirect expenses may also increase as claims would extend beyond service and care providers to anyone who kills or injures pets. Yet most pet owners will receive no value for the non-economic damages paid to just a few. In fact, in committee testimony on Delaware SB 258, the owner of the bill’s namesake “Izzy” the cat asked only for economic damages, in effect supporting the amendments that removed the cap from economic damages and deleted non-economic damages altogether to the advantage of pets and owners. To read further on this topic, go to “Harming Pets Through the Expansion of Emotion-Based Damages” on the CFA Legislative Group Blog.

EDITOR’S NOTE See the final result for SB 258, Substitute Bill SS1, signed into law on October 14, 2022.

In other news…

Governor Larry Hogan signed HB 22 into law making Maryland the second state to prohibit declawing a cat except when necessary for therapeutic purposes. New York was the first state to pass such a law.

New Hampshire Senate Bill 368 FN would increase fines for pet vendors to $1,000 for the first offense and up to $5,000 for subsequent offenses. The bill has passed both houses.

The Montgomery, Alabama City Council has adopted changes to the animal ordinances in Chapter 4 of its municipal code. The substitute ordinance that was adopted still includes special permits for breeders.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:

What’s Hot ………… Montgomery, AL Considers Breeder Licensing and Other Animal Code Changes

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . 2022 Maryland’s Noneconomic Damages Legislation and Missouri’s Pet Breeders Week Bill

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
Sharon Coleman, CFA Legislative Legal Analyst

March 2022

The Maryland House is considering House Bill 1375, a bill that would add provisions authorizing damages for mental anguish and pain and suffering, called emotion-based or noneconomic damages, for some pets. The net result of extending emotion-based damages to pets would increase the cost of breeding and pet ownership to everyone for the benefit of the few.  Compensatory damages for financial loss are already available in these cases. Courts in many states also have the discretion to award punitive damages to punish the wrongdoer for acts of gross negligence, intent, or malice. Current Maryland law allows compensatory damages up to $10,000 for the death or injury of a pet resulting from a tortious act (Maryland Code and Court Rules, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, §11-110). House Bill 1375, sponsored by Delegate Nicholaus Kipke (R), would amend the law to authorize noneconomic damages “for mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, comfort, and protection.” The proposed amendment also removes the $10,000 cap for acts involving gross negligence, intent, malice, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights violations. HB 1375 has been heard by the House Judiciary Committee. The bill’s Fiscal and Policy Note by the Maryland General Assembly Department of Legislative Services explains the statutory and case law leading to this bill.  

EDITOR’S NOTE, 3/19/222 HB 1375 “In the House – Withdrawn by Sponsor”

A companion bill, SB 815, sponsored by Senator Susan Lee (D), officially a “cross-filed” bill, has been heard but not yet voted by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. In the Maryland General Assembly, bills designated as cross-filed have improved chances of passage of at least one of the bills.

Unlike compensatory damages, emotion-based damages are generally limited to very close family members such as spouses, parents, and children. Authorizing noneconomic damages in pet cases involving torts elevates these pets above many human loved ones for whom lawmakers did not authorize such damages. Current law already elevates one class of pets above others by defining pets as domesticated animals and excluding livestock. Not all pet owners have cats and dogs; some animal owners keep livestock, snakes, or other animals as pets. That distinction will also apply to noneconomic damages if HB 1375 is enacted.

In addition to elevating the status of Kitty above many human loved ones, allowing emotion-based damages has far-reaching implications for all pet owners, especially breeders who have the additional costs involved in maintaining a breeding program and showing their cats. For veterinary medicine, if human medicine is any guide, there is no reason to believe that increased liability – and cost of care –  will improve the quality of care for our pets. The impact would also extend far beyond the veterinary field. Groomers, pet-sitters, food manufacturers, and other pet-related businesses would face greater liability, the cost of which would be passed on to the consumer. Homeowners and automotive insurance premiums may go up as the awards for pet-related claims increase. Yet, the vast majority of pet owners and their animals will receive no value for the increased cost of maintaining their pets. This topic is explored further in “Harming Pets Through the Expansion of Emotion-Based Damages,” available on the CFA Legislative Group Blog.

 A related bill, HB 965, sponsored by Delegate Kipke, would increase the §11-110 cap of $10,000 on compensatory damages to $25,000 if enacted. With the cost of veterinary medicine today, $25,000 may not be sufficient to cover the fair market value of the pet and the “reasonable and necessary cost of veterinary care” in all cases.

EDITOR’S NOTE: 4/15/2022 – The Maryland Legislature has adjourned, and none of the above bills were enacted. See the extensive 90 Day Report, Review of the 2022 Legislative Session, covering bills that were passed. Search PDF document for “animal” to fine the bills throughout the 470 page document.

In Other News

Missouri Senator Elaine Gannon (R) has sponsored SB 1200 to have the second week in March designated as Pet Breeders Week. Per the proposed §9.315, “Citizens of this state are encouraged to participate in appropriate events and activities in recognition of ethical and responsible pet breeders throughout our state for the joy they bring to pet owners.”

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts: Legislation – What’s Hot ….. Norway’s Unethical Breeding Case and the Revision of Animal Ordinances in Houston, Texas

Scroll to Top