Pre-pandemic trips to Connecticut courts were sometimes met with an interesting phenomenon. In any case involving a significant element of animal cruelty, protesters could often be found outside the courthouse, demanding a harsh outcome for the accused. There were sometimes protests or displays related to other types of cases, but injury to an animal was almost certain to elicit a public outcry. The public response inevitably made those matters seem more important than all other matters being heard that day, where those other matters may have involved death or serious injury to person.

Although we expect our courts to apply the law without regard to protests, judges are not immune to the idea that human beings no more entitled to consideration than other animals or to the arguments of those who advocate for deconstruction of a power structure they believe wrongly elevates human interests above all others. Last month, two out of seven judges of New York’s highest court would have ruled in favor of applying habeas corpus to an elephant. Also last month, a judge of Connecticut’s Superior Court, applying a standard requiring that a plaintiff be “closely related to the injury victim, such as the parent or the sibling of the victim,” in order to pursue a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, held that an owner’s relationship to his dog was sufficient to support a cause of action.