Today's program featured a bogus court case involving a woman who took her kitten to her local vet clinic to have the animal declawed. According to the program, the woman left the kitten at the clinic and the clinic receptionist coded the procedure incorrectly. When she came to get her cat, she discovered that she had been neutered. The vet reimbursed the woman for the surgery and then declawed the cat at a later date at no charge.
The woman was suing the veterinary clinic for $800 -- the value of the cat. Because she had planned on breeding the cat and now couldn't do that. It wasn't spelled out, but it was implied that they got rid of the neutered cat.
Let's set aside the fact that it appears that this is a fake program (For example, this guy named Tavion was bragging to his friends that he landed a role as "Defendant Hank Johnson with Judge Cristina Perez" just a few months ago. And this woman played the roll of the nanny in another episode.) But I'm still wondering about the legal logic behind awarding the defendant $800 for the value of her cat.
She was made whole. The clinic refunded her for the incorrect surgery. And they performed the correct surgery at no charge. They didn't even balk at these payments, judging from the testimony.
But why pay for the value of the cat? The cat is still alive. The cat is property. Cats are not awarded awards for pain or suffering. And it's difficult to imagine that the plaintiff truly suffered any real emotional harm. And if she truly wants to teach her daughter about raising kittens, this world is full of kittens with no homes. Why not adopt or rescue one before its euthanized by some shelter?
Anyway, this is an example of why I dislike this court program.