Entire Dog Blog

The Colbath family of Piscataway, NJ has filed a $5 million wrongful death lawsuit against the township and Police Officer Fred Bell after Bell shot and killed their dog, an 8-year-old Golden Retriever and Labrador mix named Maxie [WARNING: GRAPHIC]. Maxie was killed in December 2005, after Bell responded to an accidental burlary alarm at the Colbath home.

The case could set an important legal prescedent if the court finds that Maxie was a member of the Colbath family rather than merely an object owned by the family.

The details provided in the Home Tribune News article about the case are graphic and disturbing.

Without the graphic details, Brian Colbath apparently left a door ajar after setting the alarm at his mother's home. Bell responded to the alarm and questioned Colbath. The police report, according to the article, states that Maxie jumped out of Colbath's car and approached Bell in an agressive manner.

Both men yelled for Maxie to stop. When she did not, Officer Bell did not give Colbath the opportunity to restrain her. Instead, he shot her in the head, and trained his gun on the unarmed Colbath as he comforted the wounded animal. Maxie did not die immediately, even after being shot a second time (at Colbath's request) by another officer.

If the courts acknowledge Maxie as a member of the Colbath family, her owners will be eligible to recover damages to compensate for the trauma of witnessing her death -- a move that is supported by precedent, said their attorney Gina Calogero, who is covering the parts of the case related to animal law.

If won, the case will be the latest stepping stone in a legal trend that expands the definition of family and establishes benefits to match, Calogero said.

The Colbath family's claim is based on a 1980 ruling that established watching the death of a son or daughter as grounds for seeking damages. Since then, the law has extended the coverage to significant others and fetuses. In 2001, a New Jersey case suggested that if an animal is killed intentionally or recklessly, emotional distress damages might be appropriate, Calogero said.

"It's an idea whose time has come, because it's recognizing the reality of how people do react to the death of an animal, and how people put an animal in their family," she said.

There is no doubt that our pets are members of our family. They are not human, but they are also not objects or property. Just as we have a societal responsibility to protect them from abuse and neglect, we also have a responsibility to assure they are given the basic right to not be shot and killed for no reason.

I am hopeful that the outcome of this suit will be one more step toward our protection of the well being of dogs in this society.