Court upholds couple’s $96,000 verdict against SPCA
The state Superior Court has upheld a Dunbar Township couple’s $96,000 jury verdict against the Fayette County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. John and Ruth Tabaj filed suit against the SPCA and another animal protection group after humane officers improperly searched their farm and detained John Tabaj in April 1993 after receiving a call he had a stolen dog on his land. The Superior Court ruling dealt only with the SPCA.
Humane officers ultimately placed John Tabaj in custody while they searched for over two hours and then filed animal cruelty citations against John Tabaj for reported violations concerning his cows and an unlicensed dog. Those citations were subsequently withdrawn.
Testimony at the January 2002 trial indicated that the humane officers had no authority to request a search warrant and no training on the maintenance of large animals. Jurors awarded the Tabajs $43,000 in compensatory damages and $53,000 in punitive damages.
In the appeal, SPCA attorney Joseph M. George Jr. argued that the compensatory damages were too high, there was not enough evidence to support the verdict and the suit should have been dismissed because the SPCA is immune from suit as a government agency.
John and Ruth Tabaj were awarded $15,000 each for invasion of privacy and John Tabaj was awarded an additional $12,000 for malicious prosecution. All amounts were compensatory in nature.
In upholding the amounts awarded, the Superior Court opinion stated that to award damages, there did not need to be physical harm to the Tabajs.
“Instantly, the jury apparently decided that it had before it a sincere, sensitive couple, who had suffered a great deal of mental anguish, humiliation and harm to reputation from having their farm and home invaded without proper legal authority; having Mr. Tabaj placed in custody during the nearly two hour search; and, in having Mr. Tabaj falsely charged with cruelty to animals. We cannot say that its decision was unreasonable,” according to the ruling.
“An unjust accusation certainly warrants the pains asserted by Mr. Tabaj. Arriving home and finding your husband in custody and officers scouring your home and property, as Mrs. Tabaj experienced, can reasonable engender great emotional upset. What is more shameful than a farmer being accused of cruelty to animals?” continued the ruling.
The high court also ruled that there was enough evidence to warrant the verdict in court, adopting the opinion of former President Judge William J. Franks.
In the final matter, the Superior Court found that the SPCA was not eligible for immunity from a lawsuit under an act that inoculates local agencies against civil suits.
The court said because the SPCA was not incorporated by the county or Dunbar Township and did not derive its sole income from the township or county, they were not eligible for protection under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.