DVM fights to change compensation laws

St. Petersburg, Fla. — Kenneth Newman tragically lost his beloved golden Labrador retriever in April 2008 when a woman backed up her car without looking and pinned Gracie and Newman between her vehicle and his. When an insurance agent told Newman that he wouldn't receive compensation for his loss—above the dog's market value—he was enraged. Losing a pet to negligence—or even malice—and knowing there won't be significant compensation for loss invokes heartache and outrage for many a pet owners, but Newman's story differs slightly. He is a DVM.

The laws in all 50 states say that pets are property and owners should be similarly compensated for loss. The American Veterinary Medical Association has long supported that position as well. And many in the profession fear new liability concerns if emotional damages are awarded in cases of malpractice or negligence.

But Newman argues that pets are like family members and losing one too soon under such circumstances takes a greater emotional toll than does having someone total your car.

Newman and his family were returning to Florida, where he is a small animal practitioner, from a family vacation in North Carolina when the accident happened. He walked two of the family's dogs while his wife put gas in their car. One dog hopped back in the car, but Gracie needed help, and Newman bent over to pick her up. Simultaneously, a woman at the pump behind Newman's car backed up 25 yards going five to seven miles per hour without looking (her own admittance), pinning Newman and Gracie between the two vehicles.

Newman's fibula was broken in two places, and he had a compression fracture in his tibia, along with ligament and tendon damage. Gracie, who was standing perpendicular to Newman, took the brunt of the collision and had her pelvis crushed and femoral artery torn. Although she was rushed to the veterinary hospital in Tifton, Ga., there was too much bleeding, and Gracie didn't make it.

"I survived because of the dog," says Newman. "If Gracie had not been there, I would have been an amputee or been killed."

Following the accident, Newman met with lawyers and insurance agents to sort out the case. He filed a lawsuit and struggled with piling medical bills. The process was slow, and nearly two years later, an insurance company attorney told Newman he wouldn't get anything more than the $800 market value for his dog. "He told me, 'pets are just property,'" says Newman. "That's when I got mad."

That anger fueled Newman's desire to make a change in his home state of Florida, and, perhaps, nationwide. Since settling the case for his broken legs (Newman and his wife decided not to take the money offered for Gracie's market value), Newman has written a memoir, Meet me at the Rainbow Bridge, which centers on the accident and also describes his lifelong connection with dogs.

"Essentially, the book argues that, in my life, and in many others, pets are important," he says. "I'm a vet with 31 years of experience, and dogs have played a big role in my life."

He's also written Gracie's Law, which he hopes will garner attention, and perhaps, passage, in Florida. Newman believes pet owners should be awarded up to $25,000 for "loss of companionship and pain and suffering," in settled negligence or malice cases.

Newman admits, however, that his position is uncommon among veterinarians. But, he argues, "If a pet is really property, you shouldn't have to spend money over what it is worth, but people do, and vets want them to. In that sense, [pets] aren't really property because the emotional value is too high.

"[DVMs] have benefited by the human-animal bond," he continues. "But the veterinary profession wants pets to remain property in the eyes of the law, and we can't have it both ways."

Newman isn't the first to try to test U.S. legal waters when it comes to compensation for loss. Well-known author and animal rights lawyer Steven Wise presented a case before the Vermont Supreme Court in which he argued that a pet owner should be compensated for the loss of two cats that were given hypertension medication formulated at 20 times the strength of a normal dose. Wise lost that case in May 2009.

In fact, there isn't a single case in the United States that has been decided on a pet owner's behalf, says Newman, and there won't be unless laws change. Through his book and meetings with Florida lawmakers, Newman is hoping to spearhead that change, even if it means going against his professional grain. "It makes a big difference when it happens to you," he says.