Vermont's highest court is being asked to decide what a dog's love is worth.
The state Supreme Court on Thursday began hearing a case that started in July 2003, when Denis and Sarah Scheele, who were visiting relatives, let their mixed-breed dog wander into Lewis Dustin's yard and he fatally shot it.
Now the Scheeles, of Annapolis, Md., are asking the court to carve out a new legal doctrine that a dog's owners can sue for emotional distress and loss of companionship, just like parents can when they lose children.
"It's so important for people to really recognize the relationship between the families and their companion animals," said Sarah Scheele, 58, who attended Thursday's court hearing.
The Scheeles' attorney argued that a family dog is worth more than a piece of property, saying dogs "love you back."
Under the current law, losing a dog is "treated the same way as the loss of an end table," David Putter said after the hearing.
"That's not what the relationship between humans and dogs is anymore. They're a member of the family and when they're lost you can't just go out to the local store and buy a new one. That doesn't fix it."
Dustin's lawyer, David Blythe, questioned how the court could draw a distinction between a dog and other personal property.
"Can you effectively create a special rule just for dogs? Why not cats? Why not horses?" Blythe said.
The court isn't expected to make a ruling before spring.