Although man’s best friend can feel like part of the family, pets are considered property under the law. One Wyoming case may challenge that precedent.
The Wyoming Supreme Court usually hears cases on appeal at the state Supreme Court building in Cheyenne. But on Tuesday, one was argued in Wheeler Concert Hall at Casper College, giving the public a behind-the-scenes glimpse into how the court reaches decisions that impact the entire state.
A Casper family lost all three of their St. Bernard dogs within a four-day period after a neighboring trapper set up snares on the state land next to their family home.
The case, Cardenas v. Swanson, tackles three main issues:
- if snares on state land are illegal;
- if the family has claims for emotional injuries; and
- if the Supreme Court should adopt a limited rule that allows emotional damages for the loss of a pet.
People are also reading…
Some pet owners push their animals in strollers like babies. Dog bakeries sell birthday cakes for them. In Casper, people can eat lunch among cats at the Whiskers & Meows Cat Café. The Cardenas’ family attorney, Gary Shockey, argued Tuesday people’s special relationships with animals should allow for them to be viewed differently than other property in the eyes of the law.
“I’m reluctant to go down this road with you, but if dogs aren’t property, what are they?” Justice Keith G. Kautz said.
On Nov. 29, 2014, dogs Brooklyn, Barkley and Jax were let out for their usual evening run on state land near the base of Casper Mountain. Brooklyn didn’t return that night.
The Cardenas’ family began franticly searching for him but to no avail.
Two members of the family went out to search again on Dec. 2, but this time with the help of Barkley and Jax.
“What ensued was a nightmare,” Shockey said on Tuesday.
During the search, Barkley and Jax got caught in hidden snares set by trapper Sigiel Swanson and died at the scene in the arms of their family. Brooklyn was found shortly after. He had been caught in another snare around his face and died.
The family filed a lawsuit against Swanson for negligence in the hopes of recovering emotional damages for the traumatic situation and the loss of their beloved dogs. A court decided in August to dismiss all the claims. It’s now reaching its final debate in the Supreme Court.
Under current case law, people can’t make emotional damages claims for property damage. Shockey argued if someone does an illegal act which leads to the death of a pet, there should be an exception. State lands are not open to trapping, so this requirement is satisfied, he said.
“I have never asked a court to go against the ruling and opinions of almost every other court in the country,” Shockey said. “I’m hoping this court will be progressive enough to go beyond that.”
The court historically only allows special relationships to be considered in cases involving immediate family members, said Winslow Taylor, an attorney representing Swanson.
“They don’t give special relationships to friends, to best friends or to man’s best friend,” said Taylor. “It’s not warranted to put property before people. Dogs shouldn’t rise above that.”
Supreme Court justices acknowledged the difficulties people can have in viewing horses, cats, dogs and other pets as things with a monetary value.
“Watching your dog’s die is different than having your treasured photographs get wet due to negligent plumbing,” said Kautz.
If the justices rule to reverse the decision, it will have implications about the status of pets in case law and open a floodgate of new litigation. They will release their decision on the case in the coming days.
Four members of the crowd took over the justice’s bench to participate in a mock argument later on. The justices then returned to answer questions from the public about their jobs and the cases discussed at Tuesday’s event.
Justice Lynne Boomgaarden said one of the most difficult parts of the job is dealing with mostly trauma-based cases involving termination of parental rights, sexual assault and child abuse. It has “a profound effect on mine and my colleague’s psyche,” she said.
Towards the end, one woman stood up to comment on the fact that a majority of the justices are women. When she was in law school, she didn’t see women represented.
“I consider that progress myself,” she said.
“Thank you, we like it too,” said Chief Justice Katie Fox.
