On July 4, 2023, a dachshund named Duke was hit by a car and killed. Duke’s family sued the driver for emotional distress and endangering Nan DeBlase, who was beside Duke during the incident. The court case set a new standard in New York State laws, since the judge has ruled that pet dogs should be considered more than property. This led to a larger payout for the DeBlases, and a new precedent for cases involving family pets.
“It was like he was driving with his eyes closed…”
On that fateful day, Nan DeBlase was walking her son’s 4-year-old dog in Brooklyn. She recalls looking both ways before crossing the street. She had even waited for another car to pass before stepping off the curb. Before she could reach the other side, a driver sped through a stop sign, made a left turn without using the turn signal, and hit Duke. The dachshund was on a leash at the time. Nan jumped out of the way after the car nearly hit her too. Surveillance cameras caught the entire incident.
Nan and her son, Trevor DeBlase sued the driver, Mitchell Hill, for damages. “I took a step to get out of the way of this monster, who not only ran a stop sign, but was making a turn,” Nan said to the New York Post. “If you don’t see the stop sign, how do you see people? It was like he was driving with his eyes closed, and yet was able to make a left turn. I can’t even understand it.”
They based their claim of negligent emotional distress from the legal concept of “zone of danger”. This is limited to individuals in harm’s way while a family member is killed or severely injured. Until now, laws considered dogs as property. Therefore, lawsuits could only claim their market value and medical costs, reports Gothamist. However, the DeBlases challenged this law. They said the legal definition of family should include pets.
Dogs are more than property
Nan explained how the incident affected her. “It was very traumatic, extremely,” Nan said. “I mean, I was hysterical when it happened.” The Supreme Court Judge Aaron Maslow validated her experience. “It is reasonable for a jury to conclude that witnessing Duke being crushed led to emotional distress that goes beyond that which is generally felt by the loss of mere property,” Maslow wrote. “This Court fails to see why a beloved companion pet could not be considered ‘immediate family’ in the context of the zone of danger doctrine under the fact pattern presented by Plaintiffs.”
Read More: The Dog Crowned as the World’s Most Beautiful, According to Science
Maslow clarified that this ruling only applies to leashed dogs walking with their owners. Still, he received backlash from many. This included animal groups like the New York State Veterinary Medical Society and the American Kennel Club. They claim the rule would create massive liabilities for the pet industry and raise overall costs. But Maslow called these arguments “overstated”. Maslow wrote “it stands to reason that companion animals, like Duke, could also be recognized, as a matter of common sense, as immediate family.” He emphasized the leashed stipulation, which would make the ruling limited to dogs because “very few people walk tethered to their cats, rabbits, or other non-dog pets on a leash.”
Meanwhile, many animal groups supported Duke’s family and Maslow’s decision. “Animals are not ‘things’; they are living, breathing, sentient beings,” said Nora Marino from the Legal Action Network for Animals. “Courts must realize that and issue decisions accordingly. This decision was an enormous step in the right direction.” Similarly, Christopher Berry from the Nonhuman Rights Project stated, “It serves the interest of justice to recognize that Duke was not a legal ‘thing.’ He was a member of the family.”
Are dogs truly a member of the family?
The fact is many pet owners would consider their animals part of the family. In fact, in a 2019 report, the American Veterinary Medical Association states that 85% of dog owners consider them family members. However, the definition depends on each person. For example, some owners may consider them as kids or “furbabies” while others think of them as companions or best friends. Some may love them dearly but less so when it’s inconvenient. As Jessica Pierce Ph.D. on Psychology Today explains: “They are persons when we want them to be, and when we tire of them or they create tension in a family or we are moving house, they are demoted to ‘just a dog.’”
This is exemplified in a 2016 case where a Canadian judge had to determine the custody of two dogs for a divorcing couple. In Canada, the law categorizes pets as property, and he upheld that. CBC News reported him saying, “Many dogs are treated as members of the family with whom they live, but after all is said and done, a dog is a dog. By law, it is property…and enjoys no familial rights.” He draws several differences in how people treat pets and children. For example, “When our children are seriously ill, we generally do not engage in an economic cost/benefit analysis to see whether the children are to receive medical treatment, receive nothing, or even have their lives ended to prevent suffering.”
The legal categorization of dogs
However, NYS legislation is shifting away from thinking of them as pure property. In fact, some custody cases based the conclusion on the dogs’ “best interest”. This considers factors contributing to its wellbeing and safety like the relationship with the pet and the other family members and the people’s ability and willingness to care for it. After Maslow’s ruling, Nora Marino, president of the Legal Action Network for Animals, hopes other judges will follow his lead. “There are two ways to change laws: one is through the legislature, and the other is through the courts,” she said. “Every court decision, every case that recognizes that animals are more than just things is a necessary step in the right direction.”
Read More: 12 Ways Your Dog Shows They’re Truly Happy
