Oregon Court Of Appeals Rules Animals Are Not Entitled To Legal Personhood

• Published date: 05 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Professional Negligence
• Law Firm: Duane Morris LLP
• Author: Ms Michelle C. Pardo

We previously blogged about the Oregon negligence lawsuit that animal activist group Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) brought on behalf of "Justice" ' an American Quarter Horse ' and his self-described "guardian" against the horse's former owner. Back in 2017, Justice (formerly named "Shadow" and renamed ostensibly for this lawsuit) was removed from his prior owner's care for neglect and relocated to a new caretaker. Months later, Justice's former owner pleaded guilty to first degree animal neglect and was ordered to pay for the cost of Justice's care prior to July, 2017.

In May of 2018, Kim Moisman, Justice's new caretaker, filed a lawsuit that named "Justice, an American Quarter Horse" as plaintiff (with Moisman as Justice's legal "guardian"). The single claim of negligence sought economic damages for Justice's past and future care, noneconomic damages for Justice's pain and suffering, and attorneys' fees. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss the case, finding that a horse, which is not a person or legal entity, lacks legal capacity to sue in court. Justice and his caretaker appealed.

Two years after the appeal was argued and submitted, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding:

"only human beings and legislatively created entities are persons with the capacity to sue under Oregon common law."

Justice v. Vercher, 321 Or. App. 439, 441 (2022) (read opinion here).

The Court of Appeals first rejected the notion that Moisman was the horse's "de facto guardian" and that the trial court could have appointed her to be the horse's guardian ad litem to represent his interests in court. The Court of Appeals challenged plaintiff's argument that a "party" to a lawsuit could be anyone other than a natural or artificial person. Id. at 445. "A procedural mechanism does not appear to exist under Oregon law for a person to sue on behalf of an animal."

But the Court of Appeals didn't stop there. In examining whether it would be appropriate to appoint a legal guardian for an animal, the court considered how it could discern what the interests of an animal are in a negligence action, or any action at law, and importantly, who gets to decide the animal's own interests in pursuing a legal action. The Court went on:

"An animal such as a horse inherently lacks self-determination and the ability to express its wishes in a manner that the legal system would recognize. That incapacity exists in perpetuity such that it would be difficult to...