I feel sorry for the owner, but she doesn’t seem to consider the implications of what she is writing:
“ At least fifteen organizations and cities had filed amicus briefs opposing Turner’s argument. Among them were the American Pet Products Association, the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, and the American Kennel Club. They argued that if pet owners could sue for sentimental value, veterinary malpractice insurance premiums would skyrocket, and pet product companies would be hit with class action lawsuits every time someone’s cat got sick from a can of food. ”<p>If all those things happened, the pet <i>owners</i> are the ones who would end up paying the increased cost, meaning poor people would find it harder to own and care for their pets. That’s seems like a reasonable trade-off, particularly when the risk is under the owner’s control. There is also a lot of passive language in this article to avoid the owner taking responsibility - the dog “got out” of the owner’s control - whereas if it happened to my pet, I would feel that <i>I</i> hadn’t properly secured my pet