Law not on side of dog’s owners
But in March 2007, Laci died while undergoing treatment at N.C. State College of Veterinary Science facilities. Workers there accidentally inserted a feeding tube into the dog’s trachea instead of the esophagus, a mistake that started a protracted legal battle by the Sheras.
At the core of their case is whether a price can be put on a priceless family pet.
On Tuesday, the state Court of Appeals issued a ruling that said indeed one could, but it was not the response the Sheras of Wilmington and their attorney Calley Gerber of Raleigh had hoped to receive.
Under North Carolina law, pets are considered property.
The N.C. Industrial Commission, the group that decides compensation claims filed against state agencies such as the veterinary school, noted that aspect of law when awarding the Sheras $3,105.72 in November 2010 – $2,755.72 for reimbursement of the cost of Laci’s treatment from March 31, 2007, to April 6, 2007, and $350 for the replacement cost of a Jack Russell terrier.
The Sheras would not stand for that.
Laci was not their first pet nor their last. But the dog was special to the Wilmington couple. They were willing to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees and take their fight as far as they could in the courts to make a point.
“Laci was and always will be a family member,” Nancy Shera said Tuesday after the ruling. “I feel like what we’re doing is bringing awareness to people about this situation.”
In its ruling, the three-judge panel said the appeals court was not a lawmaking body.
“We sincerely empathize with plaintiffs’ loss of their beloved pet Laci,” Judge J. Douglas McCullough said in a ruling with which Judges Robert C. Hunter and Cressie Thigpen concurred. “Unfortunately … this court is not in the position to expand the law.”
The state Supreme Court or the state legislature have the power, the judges said, to rectify any inequities in the labeling of pets as “mere property” and the market valuation of pets in negligence and malpractice cases.
“Certainly the numerous policy considerations presented by the issue raised in this case – how to value the loss of the human-animal bond between a pet owner and his or her companion animal – is more appropriately addressed to our Legislature,” the judges said in their ruling.
The ruling this month came quickly after arguments in the appeals court on Jan. 24. Gerber, a Raleigh lawyer who specializes in animal law, said she was surprised by the swiftness. Months often pass between arguments and a ruling.
Now she and the Sheras will discuss their options for any further legal arguments or public airing of the issue.
The Sheras now care for a dog their grown son found on the side of the road. It is a big dog that looks similar to a Great Dane. But the way Laci died still makes Nancy Shera break down emotionally and want to continue her fight in some form.
“This was never about the money,” Shera said. “This was about bringing awareness to the people, about changing the law.”
