The tort for companionship and society is, by law, only applicable to persons and not to animals, regardless of their regard as companion animals or not. As for the trespass tort, it was found that insufficient evidence was available to prove wrongdoing by the plaintiffs. There was no evidence to suggest how the dogs entered the plaintiffs' property. Evidence of neglect was not sufficient, according to the court.

Analysis

I was somewhat surprised by the court's ruling, since at first sight the negligence was clearly on the part of the dog owners. Furthermore, the fact that the dogs had already killed another neighbor's rabbits should have emphasized the necessity of providing more secure premises for the animals. It could therefore be said that the dog owners had a duty to all their neighbors to keep their dogs securely within a limited environment, where they could not cause damage to the property of others. Letting the animals roam free in such a way as to cause the damage involved was clearly a breach of duty. The likelihood of damage was very high by letting the dogs roam free.

On the other hand, it could also be said that the plaintiffs had a duty to secure their sheep from harm, particularly during their time away from the property. Once again the damage to the rabbits should have been sufficient warning that the dogs could potentially cause harm to the plaintiffs' sheep. It could therefore be argued that they should have taken reasonable measures against this.

While the actual cause of the damage could therefore be said to be the responsibility of the dog owners, the sheep owners could have foreseen the proximate cause of the damage as a result of the dogs...

They should have taken reasonable measures against this. Finally, the damage, as offered by the court, is not of such a nature as to be compensable by the court. The main reason for this is the nature of the claim -- emotional distress. Had the plaintiffs claimed for market damages, there might have been some more compensation. Emotional distress, however, does not encompass the loss of sheep that was discovered hours after the fact, in the same way as it would not apply to dogs or cats that are killed in the same way.
Conclusion

Although I sympathize with the loss suffered by the plaintiffs, I can understand the legal reasons behind the outcomes of the case. On the other hand, I do feel that the trespass complaint should have received greater consideration. Clearly, the owners of the dogs are at fault in terms of negligence for letting their dogs out of their premises and their direct care. There should be some liability for that, especially as prior evidence also suggests similar damage to the property of other neighbors. It appears unfair that there should be no penalty for such negligence. At the very least, the defendants should be required to pay the legal fees incurred by the plaintiffs. Indeed, there is incontestable evidence that the plaintiffs suffered damage as a result of negligence by the owners. The extent of the damage is severe, and the dog owners are primarily responsible for damage created by their animals. The fact that similar future harm could be incurred by surrounding livestock and animal owners should also receive consideration in the court's ruling. I therefore believe that the court should have imposed some form of significant penalty upon the…