Maryland pet law gets day in the sun

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Jun 15, 2007 by Ben Mook

Whether or not pets should have the same legal standing as their human owners is just one of a myriad of issues the 1-year-old animal law section of the Maryland State Bar Association addressed at a forum in Ocean City on Thursday.

From not even existing a few years ago, to now having 229 members, the animal law section discussed some of the major issues facing lawyers. Chief among them is the ongoing effort by some to elevate a pet's status to be on equal footing with humans.

Susan J. Hankin, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, said one of the main challenges in the field of animal law is the pervading legal opinion of animals as property. She said under Maryland law, a family's beloved pet is seen as nothing more than a lamp or a table.

"We don't view the animals in our lives as property - they're seen more as members of the family," Hankin said.

Another issue being raised is across the country, Hankin said, is changing how pet owners are identified. She said some states are contemplating changing the language in the law from pet owner to pet guardian.

"The claim is that this will make people more responsible pet owners," she said.

The effort to elevate pets to personhood status is not without critics.

William Erskine, who serves as the registered lobbyist for the Maryland Veterinary Medicine Association, said the group has concerns about changing the status, primarily because of what it would mean for malpractice lawsuits.

Erskine said veterinarians have traditionally enjoyed lower rates for malpractice coverage due to the lower risk and payouts in court cases. That could change if animals are seen on the same level as humans.

"The closer to a human you make a pet, the greater the value and the greater the incentive there is to bring these lawsuits," he said.

One of the main reasons for the push to elevate pets' status centers is what happens to a pet when its owner dies. If they are considered property, owners can not set up pet trusts, which would allow them to stipulate funding and care in the estate.

The push to allow pet trusts, which would not change the status of pets, has a broader appeal. An earlier effort to pass such legislation stalled in the 2006 General Assembly session, but will likely be re-introduced in next year's session.

"It would not surprise me if, within the next three years, we have an animal trust bill in Maryland," Alan Nemith, the outgoing chairman of the animal law section, said.