Article content continued

Photo by Courtesy Animal Legal Defence Fund

How can this be? The Oregon Legislature recognizes “animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear,” the ALDF states (on Justice’s behalf) in the horse’s suit against Vercher.

“As a result of (the) defendant’s negligence, Justice has incurred past and future expenses for reasonable and necessary medical bills and long-term care in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than a $100,000,” the suit states. The horse is also seeking compensation at trial for his “pain and suffering.”

Poor Justice, with his ruined penis — there was a partial amputation — is now eight years old, not a suitable candidate for adoption, and could live for another 15 years with his guardian, Kim Mosiman. And care costs money. The Oregon courts have categorized animals as “victims” in criminal neglect cases. As victims — the Justice/ALDF suit argues — they retain the right to “sue their abusers for the harms they have inflicted.”

Justice’s case against Vercher is far from a slam dunk. People everywhere love their animals, but judges don’t necessarily love the idea of animals possessing the same legal rights as humans. Five years ago, the Nonhuman Rights Project filed a lawsuit against the owners of some chimpanzees in New York, arguing they be freed from their cages and relocated to an outdoor sanctuary in Florida. The courts ruled the two chimps didn’t have the same legal rights as people. In other words: a chimp could be confined to a cage, without a violation of its rights, whereas a law-abiding person could never be caged — against their will — unless they were criminal.