Stanford Journal of Animal Law & Policy (SJALP)


The Journal of Animal Law & Policy was founded in August 2007 to provide a high-quality, widely accessible forum for the publication and discussion of animal law scholarship. Although contributors to the journal may express strong opinions about the legal and policy frameworks governing the status and treatment of nonhuman animals, the journal itself welcomes a diversity of views and neither espouses nor endorses any particular approach to or theory of animal rights and/or welfare.

SJALP is by design an online-only journal. Because all content will be freely available, anyone--small firm attorneys, solo practitioners, undergraduate students, all those outside the legal community--will be able to access it. We hope that the journal will help to introduce animal law scholarship to a wider public so that many people may both read and respond to it. We anticipate building a variety of interactive features into this website that will allow readers to post monitored comments in response to published articles and to discuss the content of the journal in community forums. If you would like to receive updates on the journal's progress, please consider joining our mailing list.

Current Issue

Volume 6 (2013), Issue 1

Articles

Can’t You Smell That Smell? Clean Air Act Fixes for Factory Farm Air Pollution

J. Nicholas Hoover
Massive facilities that keep large numbers of livestock have overtaken small, independent farms as the primary source of meat, eggs, and dairy in the United States. These concentrated animal feeding operations (“CAFOs”) compare more to industrial manufacturing operations than to traditional farms, and emit huge quantities of air pollutants that are harmful to public health, sickening people and damaging the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) possesses statutorily provided tools under the Clean Air Act that it uses to regulate other polluting industries. However, this article – after reviewing the rise of CAFOs, examining the threats they pose, and surveying current regulation – suggests that the EPA’s approach to CAFOs is grossly inadequate.
  • April 2013
  • 6 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 1
  • Article

Courts and Legislatures Have Kept the Proper Leash on Pet Injury Lawsuits: Why Rejecting Emotion-Based Damages Promotes The Rule of Law, Modern Values, and Animal Welfare

Phil Goldberg
This article addresses a highly dynamic area of animal law: how much an owner can recover when his or her pet is wrongfully injured or killed. The article focuses mostly on cases involving negligence. The article’s first part explains what owners can get under current laws, namely economic compensation for their pet as well as any reasonable and necessary medical or other expenses incurred as a result of the incident. If the economic compensation for the pet cannot be derived through the pet’s market value, there are alternative methods for calculating damages to assure proper compensation. The remainder of the article captures the debate over whether the compensation can include emotion-based damages, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress and loss of companionship. Courts and legislatures have broadly rejected these damages, and this article explains why, delving into the legal theory and social values debated when this issue arises. In short, courts have held that the tort system does not compensate for relational attachments, including with pets. Courts have pointed out that this is the same reason why, for example, emotion-based damages are not compensable for harm to close personal relations, such as a cousin, fiancée, or human best friend, or for cherished personal property. The article concludes that keeping emotion-based damages out of pet litigation is, ultimately, what is best for pets themselves. Adding new, uncertain liability to pet litigation would cause the price of pet welfare services and products prices to rise. If owners cannot afford to pay these higher costs, then many pets will not get the care they need.
  • April 2013
  • 6 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 30
  • Article