Michigan Senate Bill SB0866

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/7/24
• Refer: 5/7/24

Caption

Civil procedure: civil actions; remedies for harm, injury, or death of a service animal; provide for. Amends 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.101 - 600.9947) by adding sec. 2980.

Impact

The implementation of SB 866 would significantly enhance the rights of service animal owners by providing them with a legal basis to seek compensation for distress and financial losses associated with harm to their animals. The bill expands the definition of damages to include a broad range of economic and noneconomic factors, therefore promoting the welfare of service animals and their owners. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of service animals in supporting individuals with disabilities, and by safeguarding these animals, the law acknowledges their critical role in facilitating autonomy and independence for their handlers.

Summary

Senate Bill 866 aims to amend the Revised Judicature Act of 1961 in Michigan by establishing clear legal frameworks regarding the liability of individuals for harm caused to service animals. Under this bill, any person who injures a service animal, whether intentionally or negligently, can be held liable for various types of damages. This includes both economic damages, such as the cost of care for the service animal and the value of the animal if it is lost or no longer able to perform its tasks, and noneconomic damages, such as mental anguish or loss of companionship experienced by the owner.

Contention

While the bill has garnered support from advocates for service animals, there may be points of contention surrounding compensation limits and the definition of service animals. Critics might argue that imposing liability could unintentionally discourage pet ownership or create a burden on individuals who accidentally harm service animals. Additionally, there could be discussions regarding the classification of service animals, particularly in light of varying definitions and standards across different types of assistance animals. This aspect could provoke debate about the scope of the law and whether it adequately protects all individuals who rely on animals for aid.