Boston: “The family of Cassius, the dog killed by leaking electricity from an old NStar Electric lamppost site, said last night it had turned down $200,000 in ‘comfort money’ from NStar and is demanding $740,000 from the utility or it will sue. The family said it picked the dollar figure because it equals NStar chief executive Thomas J. May’s annual salary.” It’s so hard to be an ordinary family grieving for a lost pet — much fairer if we were an affluent family grieving for a lost pet (Peter J. Howe, “Dog’s family demands $740,000”, Boston Globe, Mar. 8). For earlier stories on pets’ sentimental value and the dollar figures attached thereto, see Jul. 30, Nov. 21 and Dec. 10, 2003, etc.

More: Robert Ambrogi (LawSites) thinks I should have included more details from the Globe story that tend to cast the DeVito family’s suit in a more sympathetic light, such as that (his words): “The family would donate most of the $750,000 to the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Animal Rescue League.” My response:

I wonder how you reach the conclusion that the family “would donate most of the $750,000” ($740,000 per the Globe) to animal charities. At the press conference, according to the Globe, attorney John G. Swomley — who was at pains to portray the suit as not a money grab — said the family plans on “keeping $200,000, plus enough to pay for four years of college for Kyle and his brother Alec, 10”. At, say, Boston College (currently $37,413 room and board, and who knows how high the figure’ll be by the time the boys are grown?) that amounts to roughly another $300,000 ($37K x four years x 2 boys), leaving $240,000 of the settlement. And assuming Swomley takes, say, 30% of the $740,000 = $220,000 for his fee, that would leave a grand total of $20,000 to go to the animal charities — assuming there aren’t expenses and that sort of thing to be charged against the remainder.

You’re probably right that I should have expanded my three-sentence summary of the case at Overlawyered to delve further into these matters, since they afford valuable insight into how lawyers can manage the p.r. aspects of their cases.

Further: his response. (& letter to the editor, Mar. 15).

Filed under: animals, Massachusetts