Gut Rumbles

May 10, 2005

for cat lovers

I don't brake for animals in the road when I'm driving. I'll try to avoid them, but I always figured that my truck was worth more than their furry asses, and if push came to shove, I was going to do the logical thing--- protect my vehicle and my life, even if it meant running over the animal.

I may have to re-think my philosophy. My truck is not worth forty-five thousand dollars. A dead cat is, according to a judge.

In the lawsuit, filed in Seattle District Court in November, Paula Roemer alleged that her beloved 12-year-old black-and-white shorthair cat, Yofi, was attacked and killed in her back yard in February 2004 by a black chow chow belonging to her neighbor.

She was so traumatized that she began having sleep disturbances and panic attacks, sank into depression and began smoking heavily, she wrote in a sworn declaration.

I don't know what she was smoking, but I want some of it. If she were THAT attached to the cat, why did SHE let it outdoors? Her yard wasn't fenced and I have cat-loving assholes tell me all the time that a kitty never needs to go outside. They use a litter box and just shower you with constant love. They are just so "cute" and they make excellent HOUSE pets.

If so, then keep their asses in the house. It's a cruel world outside. I've never seen a cat in my life that was worth $45,000.

Hell, I don't know too many PEOPLE worth that amount of money.


Keep in mind the cat was in HER yard, not roaming the neighbors yard.
And yes, to lonely people a dog or cat is just like a child and can be very devastating to lose.
But I think the award is a little extreme.

Posted by: livey on May 10, 2005 10:24 PM

People who let their cats run around outside are guaranteeing a short life for their animals.

Hell, for $45k, I might be tempted to microwave one or two of mine. But don't tell the Missus, or it'll be another date with Mrs. Palm tonight. She loves them cats...

Posted by: Elisson on May 10, 2005 10:51 PM

damned cats. no cat is worth that much.

i've siad it a million times, you love your puddy, keep 'im indoors, otherwise he'll soon become cannon fodder for whatever guns is handy in MY neighborhood.

Posted by: heath on May 10, 2005 11:58 PM

A-Man, even tho you have no love for cats, you DO have logic: "why did SHE let it outdoors?"
if it was so important to her? I recently lost my oldest cat (almost 18 yrs) who was never out of the house unless she was on the way to the vet IN A CARRIER! Elisson is right.

Posted by: Indigo on May 11, 2005 09:33 AM

The judge was in Seattle. For these Peta loving environmentalists, I am suprised it was not a larger award. For those assholes all animals, plants, microbes, rocks are more important than humans.

Posted by: hoosierboy on May 11, 2005 09:43 AM

Unless the yard was fenced -- and around here precious few of them are -- the cat being in her own yard means nothing. The great outdoors is just as dangerous on the back step as it is fifty miles from town.

In these parts, if it wasn't the neighbor's dog, it could just as easily have been a coyote. And some people claim they've seen wild bobcats in the county in the past year or so.

Posted by: McGehee on May 11, 2005 09:53 AM

While I agree the fine was outrageously too high, I do agree with the determination of fault on the dog-owner.

Legally, you are not required to fence your property to keep others out (including others pets). The responsibility lies in controlling your pet to keep it off of others property.

If the cat was on the sidewalk or in the street I'd agree that them's the breaks. But, as the cat was on the cat-owner's property it is up to the dog-owner to control his pet.

Brian R.

Posted by: Brian R. on May 11, 2005 12:39 PM

Up here in Connecticut we have coyotes, and I've seen foxes out in residential areas in broad daylight, standing by the side of the road, watching you watch them as you drive by. We do let our cat out, but then he was a stray we adopted a while back, who is already used to going out (he won't if there's any snow but he prefers the great un-snowy woods behind the house to a fresh litter box, and I'm willing to indulge him, since I'm the one that cleans it). I do recognize that one day he may not come home.

$45K is insane, but the dog's owner is liable for something, since the dog was not properly restrained. He apparently has had plenty of complaints in the past about allowing his dogs, plural, to run loose. I'd be concerned about pack mentality taking over, and a child being injured or killed - a chow isn't exactly feeble, we don't know how big his other dogs are, and we do know from the story and court records that the chow attacked a second cat with the woman present.

Posted by: LibraryGryffon on May 11, 2005 12:49 PM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.