What's your pet's market value?

Another disappointing decision by a judge when it comes to the emotional cost of losing a pet comes out of San Francisco.

An article in the San Francisco Chronicle said the judge ruled against a woman who show dog died due to her veterinarian's negligence.

In a ruling Friday on a San Francisco attorney's suit against an Orange County veterinarian, the Fourth District Court of Appeal acknowledged that "the love and loyalty a dog provides creates a strong emotional bond between the owner and his or her dog."

But the court noted that a parent whose child is killed by medical negligence can't sue the doctor for emotional distress or loss of the child's companionship. By the same token, California law allows a pet owner, in some cases, to seek compensation for loss of the animal's "unique economic value" but not for its "sentimental or emotional value," the court said.

If someone breaks your lamp, they only have to reimburse you for the cost of the lamp. So, it seems, a pet, no matter how dear, is the same.

Is it time to revisit some of our laws? And let's not forget the sometimes absurdly mild penalties for animal abuse while we're at it.