Another bone-headed bill

Assemblyman Neil Cohen, D-Union, wants people to be able to sue for loss of companionship and for reimbursement of expenses if their pet dies because of contaminated pet food. He was sitting too close to the catnip when he came up with that idea. The last thing New Jersey needs is another open invitation for frivolous lawsuits.

Sure, we love our pets. And yes, we are saddened when we lose them, no matter the cause. But to give owners the right to sue for their own emotional pain and suffering — as proposed in Cohen's bill released from the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee Monday — opens a can of worms that's better left closed.

Pet food companies now only have to reimburse medical expenses related to the poisoning. Cohen's bill would allow pet owners to seek a wide range of compensation, including replacement value, burial or cremation costs. It would also let them sue for loss of companionship — up to $15,000. That prospect must have a lot of lawyers — Cohen among them — sitting up and wagging their tails. But it's a terrible idea. Juries would be asked to decide how much a person loved his or her dog, cat, bird, ferret or goldfish? Please.

Cohen's bill specifically targets pet food companies, saying owners will be able to sue them when they cause animals to become ill, injured or die. Now we're talking proof of cause of death, expert witnesses on both sides and animal autopsies. That's insane.

Cohen said his bill would change the legal standard that generally regards pets as property. When that happens, what's to stop people from suing veterinarians on a similar basis? The cost of veterinary insurance would likely skyrocket, as would the cost of veterinary care.

Veterinary groups in other states have opposed similar measures, arguing that such laws would increase consumer costs and encourage lawsuits. We agree. Cohen's bill should be stopped in its tracks. All it does is throw a bone to money-hungry lawyers eager to roll over for grieving pet owners.