Texas Supreme Court Rules on Landmark Non-Economic Damages Case

AUSTIN, Texas, April 5, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On April 5, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on Medlen v. Strickland, a case with the potential to dramatically alter the legal relationship between people and animals. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals departed from long-settled law and allowed the recovery of non-economic damages for the death of a dog that was accidentally euthanized after being picked up by the local animal control after the owner was unable to timely pay for its release. The Texas Supreme Court overruled this decision and upheld precedent that non-economic, emotionally based damages could not be claimed on the death of an animal.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20120208/DC50016LOGO )

This is a great decision for pet owners and animals in general, and the Texas Veterinary Medical Association (TVMA) commends the court in making such a decision. Veterinarians devote their lives to caring for and preventing the suffering of animals and without a doubt understand the deep bond that develops between people and their pets. They sympathize with families over the losses of their animals, but they were also aware that such a dramatic change to the way that courts in Texas apply the law would have had vast unintended consequences.

TVMA supports maintaining the current legal system because it values animals, encourages responsible animal ownership, deters animal abuse and promotes innovative, affordable and quality animal care. The current legal system has produced a stable climate for animal care that has made pet ownership economically viable for most people. If the Fort Worth Court of Appeals decision had been upheld, individuals would have been able to file suit and collect large monetary recoveries for the death or injury of an animal, recoveries that are not usually available for the death of a person. The routine awarding of such damages would turn pet litigation into a cottage industry and ultimately drive up the cost of everything associated with the care of pets, including veterinary care, medicine, boarding, grooming, etc., making owning a pet cost-prohibitive for many people. Such damage awards would fundamentally change the way veterinarians practice medicine by forcing them to practice defensively, which translated to increased costs for veterinary care.

In the opinion on the case, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don R. Willett writes, "It is an inconvenient, yet inescapable, truth: 'Tort law . . . cannot remedy every wrong.' Lines, seemingly arbitrary, are required. No one disputes that a family dog—'in life the firmest friend'—is a treasured companion. But it is also personal property, and the law draws sensible, policy-based distinctions between types of property. The majority rule throughout most of America—including Texas since 1891—leavens warm-heartedness with sober-mindedness, applying a rational rule rather than an emotional one. For the reasons discussed above, we decline to (1) jettison our 122-year-old precedent classifying dogs as ordinary property, and (2) permit non-economic damages rooted in relational attachment."

For more information on the case, visit www.tvma.org, or to read Justice Willett's full opinion, visit www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2013/apr/120047.pdf.

About The Texas Veterinary Medical Association??
Founded in 1903, the Texas Veterinary Medical Association is a professional association composed of more than 3,700 veterinarians committed to protecting public health, promoting high educational, ethical and moral standards within the veterinary profession and educating the public about animal health and its relationship to human health. For more information, call 512/452-4224 or visit tvma.org.

Contact: Elizabeth Choate, TVMA Director of Government Relations/General Counsel?
8104 Exchange Drive?
Austin, Texas 78754?
Email: echoate@tvma.org?
Phone: 512/452-4224?
Fax: 512/452-6633

SOURCE Texas Veterinary Medical Association

View the original article here

However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

NEW YORK (AP) — However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

In oral arguments Tuesday and Wednesday on two cases involving gay couples' rights, the justices left open multiple options for rulings that are expected in June. But they signaled there was no prospect of imposing a 50-state solution at this stage. With nine states now allowing same-sex marriages and other states banning them via statutes or constitutional amendments, that means a longer spell with a patchwork marriage-rights map — and no early end to bruising state-by-state battles in the courts, in the legislatures and at the ballot box.

A decade ago, opponents of same-sex marriage were lobbying for a nationwide ban on gay nuptials. They now seem resigned to the reality of a divided nation in which the debate will continue to splinter families, church congregations and communities.

"It's a lot more healthy than shutting off an intense debate at the very moment of its greatest intensity," said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.

By contrast, supporters of same-sex marriage believe a nationwide victory is inevitable, though perhaps not imminent. Many of them see merit in continuing an incremental hearts-and-minds campaign, given that many opinion polls now show a majority of Americans supporting their cause.

"No matter what the Supreme Court decides, we are going to be in a stronger place in July than where we before," said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.

"We have the momentum and we have the winning strategy," Wolfson said. "We are going to win the freedom to marry, whether in June or in the next round, when we go back to the court with more states, more public support and perhaps new justices."

Even if the Supreme Court shies away for now from any broad ruling in favor of marriage rights for gay couples, its decisions in June could produce major gains for gay-rights activists.

In one case, the justices could strike down a section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that denies legally married same-sex couples a host of federal benefits available to straight married couples. In the other, concerning California's Proposition 8 ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court could leave in place a lower court ruling striking down the ban. That would add the most populous state to the ranks of those already recognizing gay marriages: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington, plus the District of Columbia.

With California included, that group would account for about 28 percent of the U.S. population.

Meanwhile, legislative efforts to legalize same-sex marriage are under way in Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware, and lawsuits by gay couples seeking marriage rights have been filed in several other states. In Oregon, gay-rights activists hope to place a measure on next year's ballot that would overturn a ban on gay marriage approved by voters in 2004. Legislators in Nevada are debating a bill that could lead to repeal of a similar ban there.

In advance of the Supreme Court hearings, gay-marriage backers mustered support from a broad array of interest groups, including labor and religious leaders, major corporations, even dozens of prominent Republicans who co-signed a brief filed with the high court. In the past few weeks, a parade of politicians have publicly endorsed same-sex marriage for the first time, including Republican Sen. Rob. Portman of Ohio and Democratic Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Former President Bill Clinton chimed in, too, writing that he now regretted his decision to sign the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and urging that it be struck down. President Barack Obama's administration also asked that DOMA be declared unconstitutional and that Proposition 8 be struck down.

For gay-marriage opponents, it's been an occasionally daunting period as they watch a steady stream of prominent politicians and institutions join the rival side.

The conservative American Family Association's website, for example, listed some of the many well-known corporations that are now supporting same-sex marriage — including Google, Microsoft, Citigroup, Apple, Nike, Facebook and Starbucks. The website suggests that Americans opposed to gay marriage should boycott these companies, but the president of the Mississippi-based association, Tim Wildmon, acknowledges that would be impractical.

"There's too many of them to effectively boycott," he said in a telephone interview.

Wildmon expects the U.S. to remain divided over gay marriage for a long time and hopes neither Congress nor the courts try to interfere with the right of states to set their own policies.

"That's just the way it's going to be," he said. "If you want to be a homosexual married couple, move to a state that accepts it."

Such interstate moves could indeed occur, but with a potential cost for the states being forsaken, said gay rights lawyer Jon Davidson of Lambda Legal. "Maybe that's what some states want, but the outpouring of business support for us indicates a lot of businesses don't want that to happen," he said. "It creates all sorts of problems."

Among some conservatives, there's been frustration at the frequent exhortation from gay-rights activists that the Supreme Court should be "on the right side of history" by endorsing same-sex marriage.

"It requires no courage, at this point in history, to side with gay marriage advocates," Maggie Gallagher, a co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, wrote in a commentary. "Respecting the rights of the millions of Americans who disagree, and respecting the boundaries of our Constitution, is staying on the right side of history."

Conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, on his show Wednesday, suggested the spread of same-sex marriage was indeed inevitable. He cited signs of increasing divisions among Republicans on the issue.

"Whether it happens now at the Supreme Court or somehow later, it is going to happen," Limbaugh said. "It's just the direction the culture is heading. ... The opposition that you would suspect exists is in the process of crumbling on it."

In any case, it's unlikely that some of the most conservative states — those that adopted gay-marriage bans by overwhelming margins — will recognize same-sex marriages unless forced to by the courts.

A likely result is a steady stream of state-level lawsuits by gay couples, according to Boston-based lawyer Mary Bonauto, whose work with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders helped legalize same-sex marriage in several New England states.

"There are committed gay couples in every state who want to stand up and make that legal commitment to marriage," Bonauto said. "They're not going to go away. ... They believe our national promise of equal protection under the law applies to them, too, not just to the East and West coasts and Iowa."

Depending on how such lawsuits fare, Bonauto said, "I think this issue could be back at the Supreme Court in a number of years."

___

Follow David Crary on Twitter: http://twitter.com/CraryAP

View the original article here

NEW TECHNOLOGIES OF WAR DEMAND NEW RULES

WASHINGTON -- At a meeting here recently with high-level Obama officials, a group of foreign correspondents had lots of time to ask them what we had learned from the Iraq War. It was, after all, the 10th anniversary of the start of that half-witted enterprise.

Following all the usual dismal questions about how the George W. administration would have had us believe that a slavering Saddam Hussein had been about to launch nuclear weapons upon us, I purposefully asked something very different: Where are we on the rules of war?

Even in Vietnam, we correspondents, as well as anyone who served in a non-military capacity, were considered "non-combatants" under the Geneva Conventions issued between 1864 and 1949. If I am correct in my reading of the situation then, even the Viet Cong observed this designation and would pass us back, if captured or wounded. It was in Cambodia, with the vicious French Communist-educated Khmer Rouge, that non-combatancy was not observed.

What struck me was that when I mentioned the Geneva Conventions and their protection for journalists, aid workers and nurses and doctors, everyone looked around in quiet confusion. I can only assume they didn't know what the conventions assured us.

In 40-some years of covering virtually every part of the world, I found myself writing not about a solid world of designated states with interstate agreements designed to keep them at peace, but about popularly designed failed states and a "return to past movements" (my contribution to the new nomenklatura). Everywhere I looked there were societies in the process of disintegration and young people choosing to be guerrillas, insurgents and jihadis, almost always using their own society's failed and forgotten past as dark inspiration.

Arguably America's foremost scholar of foreign affairs, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, has been writing on this "new age" recently.

"The dangers inherent in the degradation of the already vulnerable international system cannot be overstated," he wrote recently in the Financial Times. "Social chaos, with paralyzing fear magnified by uncertainty as to its origins, could spread. Making matters potentially even worse, such degradation is not the product of one or another particularly menacing state. Rather, it is the consequence of the rising vulnerability of the global system to cumulative pressures: technological innovation, massive and increasingly impatient populist upheavals and a shift in the distribution of geopolitical power."

We read about it every day now. We dreamed that after the Iraq War less attention (obsession?) would be paid to military actions and military machines. Now we find that, instead, there are endless stories about drones and new, even worse, moral and ethical questions.

Is it moral to kill people with drones, say, in Yemen or Pakistan? Is it moral to kill an American, on our soil or someone else's? Should we hit Iran, as we did, with cyber warfare? What power should an American president have in this new, dark world? Can he alone make out a "kill list" and carry it through?

The Justice Department has just argued in a white paper that the president has legal powers to kill U.S. citizens suspected of presenting an "imminent threat" to the nation. (In the 1950s and '60s, even groups like the Black Panthers might well have been considered threats by certain people.) NATO commissioned the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, a study recently released in which the U.S. and Israel are both criticized for a secret 2009 cyber attack that crippled Iran's nuclear program. (Now, not surprisingly, the world is getting into the act.)

So, here's MY suggestion -- an impassioned one. We, the United States of America, should sponsor an international conference on the new rules of warfare, at some special place of significance. We should root out all the secret groups fighting in mountains and deserts. We should have the leaders of these groups at the rostrum. We should take the blame for our mistakes, but force others to speak out just as honestly.

For several days, the militaries of the world, the peace people and the new insurgents would mix and talk. We should move on from where Geneva in 1949 stopped. We should cooperate with the United Nations and organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and devise new conventions to protect the sick and wounded, the non-combatants of this new world.

Once again, America would look like the moral and cultural leader of the world, and not like waterboarders and drone targeters. Surely it is time to modernize morality for a newly militarized world.

(Georgie Anne Geyer has been a foreign correspondent and commentator on international affairs for more than 40 years. She can be reached at gigi_geyer(at)juno.com.)

View the original article here