Woman sues to prove dogs are 'living souls,' not property

[AbbyK9]

Woman sues to prove dogs are 'living souls,' not property - TODAY Pets & Animals - TODAY.com

Zakharova is seeking compensation for past and upcoming surgeries and other medical treatment involved with Umka, which totals at least $8,000. She also wants a full return of the dog’s sale price plus interest since the date of purchase in February of last year.

I think the lawsuit is a little far fetched.

Yes, I don't like it if people think of animals as property in the same category as a table or chair ... but as long as they can be bought and sold, they *are* property, no matter how loved or how well-cared-for.

Yes, I think pet stores should not be allowed to sell live cats and dogs and that puppy mills should be shut down. I think anyone who loves dogs feels the same way.

I think the moral is, if you want a healthy dog and a breeder who cares about their dogs (and will support you), then you don't buy your dog from a pet store.

[BR870]

Slippery slope...

[Whiteshepherds]

It makes no sense. If she adopted a baby (living soul) and it got sick, would she sue the birth parents or the adoption agency??

[Konotashi]

Perhaps she should have done 10 minutes of reading (maybe less) to realize that if a puppy is in a pet store, it will likely have a slew of health problems later in life due to the puppy mills that supply the stores.

[Syaoransbear]

"If the definition of a pet is changed from that of property to an animate being with feelings, it could substantially change the amount of damages that could be awarded when an owner buys a defective dog born in a puppy mill, according to Lask."

It doesn't matter if her animal is property or not, people don't even get to sue for having genetic health defects.

[x0emiroxy0x]

I wonder if she is one of those people that sues the hair dryer makers when she puts it in the sink and it electrocutes her...

Or sues Mcdonalds when she spills hot coffee on herself...

[Draugr]

I am very thankful that my dog is legally considered my property so that others cannot come in and tell me how I must raise him, how I must train him, what vaccines I must give, what medical procedures I must have performed on him, what foods I must feed him, etc.

To me, he is family. But I am quite happy that the law considered him my property.

[x0emiroxy0x]

The only problem with the dog being your "property" is that in some states, you can only use deadly force if it is being used against you.

That's why I live in Texas...once youre on my property...don't mess with my dog!

Someone got sued (forgot what state) when a burglar climbed over their fence and the person's dog ripped his leg off. It was "excessive force"

[Konotashi]

Originally Posted by x0emiroxy0x

I wonder if she is one of those people that sues the hair dryer makers when she puts it in the sink and it electrocutes her...

Or sues Mcdonalds when she spills hot coffee on herself...

Or sues McDonald's because they got fat.

I have chronic migraines, maybe I should sue my mom for that.

[Draugr]

Originally Posted by x0emiroxy0x

I wonder if she is one of those people that sues the hair dryer makers when she puts it in the sink and it electrocutes her...

Or sues Mcdonalds when she spills hot coffee on herself...

McDonalds case you mention was actually legitimate. Woman suffered third degree burns to her...um, "lower areas" bad enough to require skin grafts. IIRC - it's been awhile since I read the details of the case - she even tried to settle out of court with them for just the medical costs, but they refused. Wound up losing big time.

Hot coffee is hot but that is a bit excessive.