In 1995, an airline paid $15,000 to settle a case after Spirit, a companion animal, died when she was treated as baggage. The money settled the claim, but it could not show what Spirit’s life meant or why her death felt so different from losing a suitcase.
This difference between how families see pets and how the law classifies them is the main discussion in We’ve Got Feelings Too by Carolyn B. Matlack, JD. The book tells the story of Alex, a lawyer working under laws that treat animals as property. Two cases make her question what this view misses. Spirit’s case is about harm and compensation, while Teddy’s case is about custody and the right to be heard.
Together, these cases turn a complex area of law into a story that pet owners can easily relate to.
When a Living Animal Becomes a Property Claim
Spirit’s case starts with a common legal issue. Property is valued in money, so courts look for receipts, replacement costs, and clear expenses. This approach works for things like chairs or suitcases, but losing a companion animal is a different kind of loss.
Spirit had relationships, habits, and a special role in someone’s life. Another dog, even of the same breed or price, could never truly replace her.
Jolene’s lawsuit brings this issue into focus. The settlement is important, but her bigger achievement is the policy change that comes after. Her efforts show how one case can reveal a flaw in the system, even if the law does not change right away.
The story also becomes personal for Alex. Jolene is terminally ill, and her last words to Alex are simple: “Keep doing what you’re doing.” That message stays with Alex. The work is no longer just an intellectual challenge. Someone she cares about has trusted her with the ongoing argument.
Teddy’s Behaviour Says What Court Papers Cannot.
Teddy’s case shifts the focus from compensation to custody.
Teddy is the Sullivans’ collie and also works as a therapy dog at Pine Haven Home for Boys. Both Ralph Sullivan and Pine Haven have legal interests in the case. Teddy cannot file a statement, hire a lawyer, or tell the judge where he wants to live.
But his behavior still says something.
At Pine Haven, Teddy becomes unhappy and stops eating. With Mark and Laura Sullivan, he seems settled and content. Anyone caring for him would notice these details. But if the court treats him strictly as property, it may focus only on ownership and possession.
This is where the legal status of pets matters in practice. It shapes which facts the court considers. If Teddy is seen as just property, his feelings may not matter legally. If the court sees him as a sentient being, his reactions to each home become important evidence.
Matlack makes an important point here. Teddy’s case is a researched example of what could happen, not a real court decision. This lets the book explore how current legal procedures might handle a new argument.
Who Could Speak for Teddy?
Alex suggests using substituted judgment, a method where someone else can speak for a person who cannot make a legal choice themselves.
According to her, Teddy could have a guardian ad litem. Attorney Arthur Jackson could then argue for what is best for Teddy rather than take sides between the owners. The court would hear evidence about Teddy’s health, behavior, attachments, and daily life.
This proposal touches on one of the toughest questions in animal law. Animals may have clear interests, but the legal system usually needs a human to speak for them. Teddy’s case shows why having someone represent the animal is as important as protecting it.
The Sentient Property Solution
Alex’s argument does not ask courts to treat Teddy like a human. It starts with the legal category that already exists.
Teddy is still considered property, but the court would recognize a higher category called Sentient Property, or Feeling Property. This status shows that animals can feel fear, comfort, pain, attachment, and distress.
This change could help the court see more. Ownership papers would still matter, but so would Teddy’s refusal to eat, his comfort with Mark and Laura, his therapy work, and the stability of his daily life.
The Sentient Property Concept is deliberately practical. Matlack understands that courts rely on precedent and tend to move gradually. Her proposal gives judges a way to acknowledge animal sentience while staying inside a familiar legal framework.
For readers interested in books about animal rights, this difference is important. We’ve Got Feelings Too does not argue for full legal personhood. Instead, it looks for a practical category between property and personhood.
Why Tell This Argument Through a Story?
Carolyn B. Matlack writes with both legal knowledge and personal experience. The book is creative nonfiction, and it explains legal ideas in a way that is easy for general readers to understand. Some names and places have been changed.
Alex’s bond with animals goes beyond her work as a lawyer. Memories of Peppy, her childhood dog, and Tippy, her brother Jack’s dog, give her legal arguments a personal background. Later, adopting Mariah shows that animals are still part of her private life, even as her cases fill her professional life.
These details keep the book realistic. Readers understand why Alex keeps going after setbacks and why Jolene’s last message means so much.
What This Animal Law Book Adds to the Conversation
We’ve Got Feelings Too invites readers to see what legal words can hide. Terms like “property,” “damages,” and “possession” sound neat, but Spirit and Teddy show the real lives behind those words.
Spirit’s case asks how the law values an animal after something that cannot be undone. Teddy’s case asks if an animal’s feelings should help decide where he lives. The Sentient Property Solution links both issues with one idea: courts should recognize that living property can suffer, form bonds, and have its own interests. This is what makes the book useful. It helps readers clearly understand the legal status of pets and shows how the law could start to see them more completely.
