Image Credits: @paulinel on Unsplash (Unsplash License)

INTRODUCTION

As a relatively new field of law, animal law can be defined as “the combination of statutory and case law that relates to or has an impact on nonhuman animals. It encompasses companion animals and wildlife and animals used in entertainment, research and ones raised for food”. One of the most compelling aspects of animal law, unlike other fields of law, is its association with many other fields of law–just to name a few, tort law, criminal law, constitutional law, and family law. 

Prior to the coining of the term “animal law,” a few lawyers decided to perform an experiment, “consciously trying to use the American legal system to increase protections for animals.” Through these pioneering efforts, more lawyers and law students joined in the hopes of increasing protection for animals post-1970. What started out initially as a small group of advocates for animal rights and protection eventually spread to the “establishment of bar committees and sections, animal law classes and student groups, conferences, and outreach to legal professionals throughout and beyond the borders of the United States.”

The creation of the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) in 1979 (or what was called the Attorneys for Animal Rights from 1979-1984), marked a new milestone for animal law; ALDF began as roughly half a dozen attorneys and law students who met on a monthly basis in San Francisco (ALDF’s headquarters are still located in San Francisco today), in order to “explore common ground and teach themselves about the state and federal laws intended to protect animals. Today, ALDF works to protect animals by filing groundbreaking lawsuits to stop animal abuse and expand the boundaries of animal law, providing free legal assistance to prosecutors handling cruelty cases, working to strengthen state anti-cruelty statutes, and encouraging the federal government to enforce existing animal protection laws. 

Animal law continues to permeate cases across the entire federal court system, ranging from the Supreme Court to state circuit courts. 

KOESTER V. VCA ANIMAL HOSPITAL

John Koester decided to entrust his dog at the VCA Animal Hospital’s kennel over a weekend, but left special directions to caretakers to refrain from using a collar on the dog due to a salivary gland health issue that VCA veterinarians had previously treated the dog for. When Koester returned to pick up his dog, he noticed that the dog’s neck was significantly swollen, and for the next few days, the dog continued to exhibit excessive swelling around the neck area. Koester returned to the VCA Animal Hospital and had the dog treated by veterinarian Marjorie Field, who treated the dog by “draining its enlarged gland and bandaging its neck and head”; when Koester returned for his dog post-treatment, he noticed the dog displayed problems with breathing and inquired if the bandages were wrapped too tight to Field, to which Field responded that there would be no issues “once it calmed down.” Later that day, Koester left his dog alone to run an errand, and upon return, discovered the dog “lying “motionless on the floor, having apparently choked to death”; findings of an autopsy revealed that the dog had suffocated from the tight bandages. 

Koester brought the “instant negligence action pleading damages that included plaintiff’s pain and suffering, extreme fright, shock, mortification, and the loss of the companionship of his dog”, to which VCA Animal Hospital “moved for summary disposition…for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, arguing that [Koester] was not entitled to the damages pleaded as a matter of law. The trial court agreed, holding that emotional damages for the loss of a dog do not exist.” Koester v. VCA Animal Hospital is an interesting case for examination, as it closely deals with the four primary elements a plaintiff must prove to establish a prima facie case of negligence: a) “the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff”, b) the defendant breached that duty (to which they owed the plaintiff), c) “the defendant’s breach of its duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury”, and d) “the plaintiff suffered damages.” Considering that Koester v. VCA Animal Hospital took place in the state of Michigan, it is important to note that “there is no Michigan precedent that permits the recovery of damages for emotional injuries allegedly suffered as a consequence of property damage.” Koester essentially argues that the Court should allow “such recovery” when a pet is the property that is damaged, asserting that pets of modern society are not appropriately categorized as simply “chattel”. The Court of Appeals of Michigan expressed sympathy for the plaintiff’s position, but ruled that Koester’s “complaint failed to plead legally cognizable damages and was properly dismissed by the trial court”, citing in part that there were “no statutory, judicial, or other persuasive authority that compels or permits this Court to take the drastic action proposed by [Koester].”

UNITED STATES V. STEVENS

Robert J. Stevens was apprehended for the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 48, which prohibits the “creation, sale, or possession of images of animal cruelty if done for commercial purposes”. Stevens was indicted for his production and sale of videos of pitbulls engaged in fighting and mauling other pitbulls and animals. Stevens argued that 18 U.S.C. § 48 was  “facially invalid” for its “substantial overbreadth,” but a federal district court rejected his argument, sentencing Stevens to over three years of imprisonment. However, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals “vacated the sentence, declaring the law facially unconstitutional”; U.S. v. Stevens was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 8-1 in favor of Stevens. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. essentially argued that 18 U.S.C. § 48 was “too broad and could apply to hunting videos and livestock slaughter,” exemplified by how the market for dogfighting videos was “dwarfed by the market for other depictions, such as hunting magazines and videos.” Justice Samuel Alito filed a separate dissent, asserting that the Court should “defer to the government’s interpretation of the law as applying only to crush videos and dogfighting videos.”

Animal law as a relatively new field continues to develop today as animal protection laws are enacted and enforced at all levels of government along with some federal animal protection laws. Some examples of federal legislation include the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Slaughter Act. Passed into law in 1966, the Animal Welfare Act primarily concerns animals housed in zoos, laboratories, and breeding facilities (e.g. puppy mills), setting a minimum standard for these animals’ care, health, transportation, and treatment. The Humane Slaughter Act (passed in 1958, amended in 1978) applies primarily to livestock animals, requiring that animals are stunned into unconsciousness before slaughter to minimize pain–however, enforcement of this law has been noted to be inconsistent, as it does not apply to some livestock that equally are subject to feeling pain from slaughter (i.e. chickens and turkeys). 

Since its genesis, animal law has attained many notable milestones; considering that the field of animal law began as a few lawyers carrying out a legal experiment, the field has grown largely, largely in part, through the ALDF. The ALDF continues its mission to protect and advance the interests of animals in the legal field, filing lawsuits to prevent animal abuse and expand the frontlines of animal law, working to reinforce anti-cruelty legislation, and much more. Furthermore, it is worth noting that animal law varies between states; the ALDF publishes a U.S. State Animal Protection Laws Ranking Report yearly, ranking states as being top tier (3 strengths, 2 weaknesses), middle tier (2 strengths, 2 weaknesses), or low tier (1 strength, 4 weaknesses). 

Animal law continues to evolve, with the passage of new animal protection legislation, states building upon successful laws implemented in other states, and more. Considering that animal law is a relatively new legal field, however, there remains much more to be discovered and developed in the future within this legal field.