Law goes to the dogs--and cats.

Day care centers cater to cats. Bakeries specialize in gourmet dog biscuits. Books like The Hidden Life of Dogs and Why Cats Paint view animals as intelligent beings with complex inner lives.

But despite the rise of pet superstores, pet insurance, and pet resorts, many courts view animals the same way they did in the Middle Ages--as "chattel," little more than a chair or a pair of shoes. That means if a pet is injured by an incompetent veterinarian, the most compensation its owner is likely to receive is the market value of the animal.

That view is slowly beginning to change.

Take, for example, the case of canines Freckles and Muffin. A hunter in Texas shot and killed the dogs, leading a jury to award $4,300. In 1994, a state appeals court upheld the verdict, noting that "a great number of people in this country today treat their pets as family members." (Buckner v. Hamel, 866 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. App. 1994).)

A 1999 case involving a cat originally named Merlin may be even more significant. When Merlin's owner left him with a former partner for more than a year following the Couple's separation, a New York appellate court ruled that he could not take the animal back. The court said the cat, who had been renamed Lovey, should "remain where he has lived, prospered, loved, and been loved." (Raymond v. Lachmann, 695 N.Y.S.2d 308 (App. Div. 1999).)

Animal law is currently enjoying something of a golden age. About 20 university law schools, including Georgetown and Harvard, teach it. There's an animal law review and an animal law casebook, and roughly 1,000 lawyers are active in the Animal Legal Defense Fund. This year, state bar associations in Connecticut and New York joined those in Michigan, Texas, and Washington in forming committees devoted to various facets of the field.

Marcus Wilkinson typifies the trend. In Hartford, Connecticut, he practices mergers and acquisitions law, which, he quipped, "is about as far away from animal law as you can get." But love for his seven cats propelled him to take a leadership role in the area. "People often feel about animals the same as they do for their children," said Wilkinson, who cochairs the animal law committee of Connecticut's state bar. "It doesn't make sense to treat them as mere objects. We know they are intelligent and feel pain."

The field is as diverse as the animal kingdom itself. It encompasses veterinary malpractice and claims against municipalities that regulate pit bulls and other so-called nuisance animals. It includes estate planning to care for pets after their owners' death--the period one author calls the "arfterlife"--as well as legal action by activists who seek full "personhood" for advanced species like great apes.

"The trend reflects a natural reaction to our changing relationship with animals," said Rick Cupp, a professor and associate dean at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California. "At one time, animals

were viewed as assets because most people lived on farms. Now we look to animals not for economic utility, but emotional utility. It's a classic evolution of the common law."

For practitioners, animal law is no walk in the park. They litigate with little guidance from case law, knowing that each time they argue a case, they could set legal precedent in their state. Damages awards are typically modest--animal lawyers frequently take on what one calls "pro bone" cases.

Often pet owners themselves, some of these lawyers don't eat meat; others don't wear fur or leather. Though not all of them champion animal rights, many see their role in the plaintiff law tradition of protecting the downtrodden and giving voice to the voiceless.

Marianne Merritt, a New York City attorney who has taught animal law at George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., switched to animal rights cases after working on voting rights litigation in Louisiana and Mississippi. "To me, it's a natural extension of women's rights and civil rights," she said. "I'm not saying animals should have the right to vote. I'm saying we should acknowledge that they're not robots or pieces of furniture."

That view is reflected in animal law attorneys' language, such as referring to "companion animals" rather than pets. The state of Rhode Island, and cities like Berkeley, California, and Sherwood, Arkansas, have changed municipal language, replacing the term "owner" with "guardian."

Such moves worry those who believe that enhancing the legal status of animals could have unseen ramifications, not only in civil litigation, but also in regulations guiding biomedical research and the produce industry.

Cupp, the Pepperdine dean, adores Shasta, the nine-year-old husky-Australian shepherd mix he adopted. But he's not so sure about granting dogs legal rights.

"It sounds like something that's warm and fuzzy and pro-animal," he said. "But I'm wary about giving rights to creatures that are not capable of exercising responsibility. I don't think I want Shasta arrested if he pees in my neighbor's front yard."

Cupp said the animal-rights battle is currently being fought in the area of veterinary malpractice, as plaintiff lawyers seek noneconomic damages--such as pain and suffering or loss of companionship--for owners of injured or killed pets.

Veterinary malpractice

If the nascent animal law movement has a seminal case, it might be the more than 20-year-old Corvo v. Crawford Dog and Cat Hospital. (415 N.Y.S.2d 182 (Civ. Ct. 1979).) Kay Corvo, of Queens, New York, won damages for emotional distress after she discovered, at an open-casket funeral, that an animal hospital had switched her poodle's remains with those of a cat. In his verdict, Judge Seymour Friedman noted that "a pet is not just a thing, but occupies a special place somewhere between a person and a piece of property."

Corvo received a small award, and the decision had no legal bearing outside New York City. But attorneys began citing it in suits brought elsewhere.

Though veterinary malpractice claims were practically unheard-of when Corvo won her case, the number of suits has grown rapidly in recent years: Linda Wyner, a lawyer in Walnut Creek, California, said her caseload has doubled each year since she began representing defendants in animal cases, in 2000. Still, the field is new enough that a suit catches many of her clients by surprise. To her chagrin, some of her veterinary clients keep informal or sloppy records. Expert witnesses in such cases often are testifying for the first time.

"[Veterinarians] haven't been in litigation enough to have the patterns that most medical doctors take for granted," Wyner said. "They are surprised and confused about how to handle it."

With obvious differences, these cases play out much like standard medical malpractice lawsuits. Plaintiff lawyers argue that the veterinary world is a closed society in which vets are unwilling to testify that a colleague breached the standard of care. Echoing claims brought by supporters of tort "reform," defense counsel claim that litigation will lead to higher malpractice insurance rates, which will force veterinarians to charge higher fees.

Vets typically earn less than physicians and pay far less for malpractice insurance. Cupp adds that the "elasticity" of demand for pet care makes vets' livelihoods more precarious. "Many pet owners will say, `If you can take care of it for $200, I'll do it,'" said Cupp, who opposes emotional distress damages in such cases. "Vets often have to do `quick and dirty' procedures in order to work within the constraints. That's why a lot of results can be called into question."

Plaintiff lawyers argue that emotional distress damages are necessary to hold the profession accountable and should reflect the unique emotional bond between owners and their pets.

The field certainly has its share of horror stories. In Frankfort, Kentucky, a woman won damages for negligence and loss of companionship after her German shepherd died during neutering at a veterinary hospital. (Stephanski v. Wimpy, No. 96CI00118 (Ky., Franklin County Cir. Ct. Apr. 15, 1997).) In Costa Mesa, California, Helen Evers's rottweiler, Lonnie, was left with mangled nails and broken teeth after a botched operation. His mouth and paws infected, the dog wailed in pain. Evers won a $20,000 emotional distress judgment, widely believed to be the largest ever against a veterinarian. (Evers v. Palmer, No. 773909 (Cal., Orange County Super. Ct. Apr. 26, 2000).)

Most jurisdictions have no clear policy on claims for noneconomic damages. But courts in Florida and Hawaii allow awards for pet owners' emotional distress. And in 2000, Tennessee passed a law allowing pet owners to recover damages for the loss of the "society, love, and companionship" of an animal. But some attorneys say the statute lacks teeth: Damages were capped at $4,000.

Despite changes, animal lawyers continue to fight an uphill battle. In a closely watched case in November, a state appeals court in Massachusetts ruled against a couple who sought damages for mental anguish after their seven sheep were mauled by dogs. (Krasnecky v. Meffen, 777 N.E.2d 1286 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002).) Bob and Anne Krasnecky allowed the hooved animals free reign of the house, took them on family vacations, and fed them Dunkin' Donuts. To them, the sheep were like children.

If such scenarios sound laughable, bear in mind that no less a defender of the downtrodden than Emile Zola once said, "The fate of animals is of greater importance to me than the fear of appearing ridiculous."

Some lawyers admit they've had to over come the "giggle factor" in conversations with friends and colleagues.

"Nonlawyers, especially, find it amusing," said Connecticut's Wilkinson. "They picture animals going to court as named plaintiffs--you know, Fido v. Fluffy. But as soon as you get past that joke, and they realize that you're really talking about protecting animals, they come around."

Wilkinson compares the skepticism to attitudes environmental lawyers faced 40 years ago: "People said, `You're going to represent a tree?' Now environmental law is a flourishing, credible field."