Quote:
I disagree. The emotional trauma felt by your children while you were under attack, not to mention their current fears are very relevant. These were not birds they had "just had a week," but rather ones they had had for quite some time. Did they raise them from chicks? I think you need to take them to a child psychologist/psychiatrist and ask for him or her to evaluate the trauma, fear and stress they were under, and then provide a written report to the court. I'm sure it at the least needs to be notorized, and the psychologist may need to be available for deposition or to appear in court.
The dog owner is sad that he lost his new dog that he did not care for properly. Your children were in fear of their lives!
The plaintif's dog that was shot had been only owned by the plaintif for about a week, if I recall the original incident correctly.
Nonetheless, in court, animals are generally "property." If the property is damaged by someone else, and that person is found to be at fault, the damages are generally "repair or replace." Emotional attachments rarely factor.
This works in Ed's favor. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect a judge would likely throw this one out. Even if the judge found for the plaintif, I would think it would be along the lines of "here's $100 for another dog, keep this one on a leash, get the hell out of my courtroom!" I wouldn't think a judge would award Gapp a bunch of money for emotional distress and psychiatric treatment over the loss of a dog he had all of a week and cared so much about that he let it run loose and out of sight. Ed don' live in Kalifornia.
