Court to Decide on Value of Animals

Email this page to a friend

PORTLAND, Ore. - In an effort to recover damages for the murder of his companion animals, ex-National Football League star, Stan Brock, filed a brief on September 29, 2000. Brock challenges the property status of animals and implores the court to view the two animals as companions. This is a precedent-setting concept because it advances the theory that animals have significance beyond their "property market value."

Brian Raymond Rowe voluntarily admitted to having intentionally shot and killed both Rookie and Jake, the Brock family’s two chocolate Labrador retrievers, with a hunting bow and arrows. In a civil court of law, animals are perceived as property, and nothing more. Thus, most families are granted remedies for their "damaged" animal companions pursuant to property claims or the tort of emotional distress for the damage done to their property. The Brock family is suing for more. The Brock family demands that Rookie and Jake be recognized under the law for their special value. They wish to recover damages for the loss of companionship caused by the brutal murders of Rookie and Jake.

"Liability under the tort of loss of companionship…is based on one person hurting or destroying the relationship another had with their animal. Damages for this [loss of companionship] tort focus…on the affinity and the association between the [guardian and animal] as having its own independent value," says Geordie Duckler, the attorney representing the Brock family. "[Domestic animals] are living breathing creatures tremendously similar to humans themselves on innumerable basic biological levels, and they are entitled to more deference than that which the law currently bestows upon them."

These issues in animal law have recently attracted an increasing amount of notoriety in academic and legislative forums. A handful of law schools, such as Hastings, UCLA, Georgetown, Vermont, Harvard and Yale have added Animal Rights Law to their schools’ curriculum. Additionally, the County of Boulder and State of Tennessee have incorporated the availability of relief for emotional distress due to the loss of one’s animal companions into their local laws.

"We still have a long way to go. In order to gain standing in the eyes of the law, courts need to start viewing animals as individuals, and not just pieces of property subject to property claims. It’s time for states to develop civil laws and civil remedies outside of property causes of action," says Elliot Katz, DVM, president of In Defense of Animals. "Hopefully, this case can set a precedent in the 9th Circuit by providing relief to the Brock family for the loss of their valued animal companions."

Stan Brock, et al. v. Brian Rowe, case No. COO2535CV is filed in the Circuit Court, County of Washington, Oregon.