OK, OK so it's been a while since I last blogged. The recent news story about the $45,480 for the death of a cat in Seattle, however, has got me back into the game.

The non-lawyer reader may think that this woman actually won that amount at the end of a lawsuit. She almost certainly didn't. Although the press accounts don't say so explicitly, the context makes me believe that this was a "default judgment." What that mean is that the defendant didn't bother to respond and the woman's attorney walked into court and simply had to convince an overworked judge (Barbara Linde in this case) to pick a number out of thin air.

The chance of this woman ever getting any money at all is virtually nil.

Judge Linde probably figured it was easier to give this attorney what he was asking for than to get bogged down in a lengthy explanation of the intrinsic value of pets. She didn't expect to draw national attention. In any event this is not what you would expect if the case had been actively defended.

Judge Linde made a mistake in awarding anything for emotional distress much less $15,000. The law is actually pretty clear that the most this woman should have gotten was the cash value of the pet.

The $30,000 for the actual value of the cat seems to be wholly unsupported. That is lawyer speak for "made up." I challenge anyone to find a cat that ever sold for that much - excepting rare breeds and show cats. Remember the dead cat in this question was a stray this woman picked up. It seems to me the cash value is what she paid for it -- nothing.
- posted by Thomas @ 9:10 PM