[ SHOWGSD-L ] Dog Laws
- From: Michelle Wallis <midwall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Show GSD <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:08:49 -0800
Stormy,This is much better for dog owners. Before the dogs were deemed property
and therefore the owner could go for the fair value of the dog. But if you had
a dog who could be saved, and you as the owner opted to do so, you were only
entitled to fair value, not the medical bills. This new case means that if my
dog is hurt (for example in a car accident) and has a spinal cord injury that
can be fixed at UC Davis but will cost $20,000.00 I can seek that in damages
from the party at fault, so long as the costs incurred were reasonable and
related to the accident. This gives the owner options. Most car insurance
companies cap the value of property replacement and dogs are not usually
included. Progressive advertises they will cover your dogs, but the fine print
(last I checked) said not if it was part of a "business"... so your brood bitch
or stud dog won't be covered is what I was told.
This is as close as dog lovers will come to being made whole for accidents,
attacks, negligence, etc.,Michelle Wallis
> Msg: #9 in digest
> Subject: Re: dog laws
> From: "Stormy V. Hope" <stormy435@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 17:53:55 -0800
>
> Evan, do you really think that giving more than $$ value for the dog is a
> good thing? Aren't we a bit concerned about the dog not being 'property'
> with that decision? What happens to the malpractice insurance that vets have
> a to pay now as a result
or dog handlers or boarding facilities. What
> happens to our house insurance when the neighbors' dog and ours get into a
> scuffle and the neighbors' dog get the worst of it.
> On the other hand, I appreciate that our dogs' noses can certainly be
> valuable on our winning this war on drugs (read a tiny bit of sarcasm in
> there.)
>
> Maybe I should go back to reading about Will Trent.
>
> Stormy
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 4:48 PM, ELG440@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > For those who are interested the United States Supreme Court just decided
> > that the drug sniffing alert of a German shepherd is admissible evidence in
> >
> > a court of law.
> >
> > California Supreme Court just decided that the damages for injuries to a
> > dog may be higher than the dollar value of the dog. There can be emotional
> >
> > damages for injury to your dog. That is a great beginning, and California
> > is
> > often the progressive direction of the rest of the country.
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2012. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Each Author is responsible for the content of his/her post. This group and its
administrators are not responsible for the comments or opinions expressed in
any post.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
SUBSCRIPTION:http://showgsd.org/mail.html
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================
Other related posts:
