NetAP obtains fundamental decision at Federal Court for injured cats

The cat Brombeeri was found seriously injured at a bus stop in August 2022. Most likely a victim of traffic, but there was no trace of the driver, as is unfortunately all too often the case in traffic accidents involving animals. A passer-by reported the injured cat to the police, who immediately took her to a veterinary clinic. There she was diagnosed with a skull fracture, a broken jaw and a cleft palate injury. As it had no microchip or collar with an address, it was not possible to notify the owner. So what to do? The injured cat, which was quickly christened Brombeeri, could incur financial costs. However, despite its serious injuries, the prospects for the well-groomed, tame cat were good. Should it be stabilised as an emergency, operated on without cost approval, or put down immediately?

Since the Brombeeri case is anything but an isolated incident, and veterinary clinics with emergency services in particular regularly have to take in found animals, NetAP wanted to clarify a fundamental question:

How are injured cats that have been found protected, and who is responsible for them?

The court proceedings through all instances up to the Federal Court were once again conducted free of charge (pro bono) by our Vice-President, Prof. Dr. Bruno Mascello, and the court costs were also paid privately and not from donations.

Since the Animal Welfare Act prohibits causing animals to suffer, we believed that the municipality on whose land the animal was found should step in, at least until the situation was clarified. Furthermore, based on the right to find property, the municipality would have to keep and care for such animals for at least two months. However, the Federal Supreme Court disagreed, thereby sending out an unfavourable signal. It ruled that neither animal welfare law, the law on found property nor any other provisions impose an obligation on a municipality to help an injured animal or to bear the costs. A veterinarian who provides such help nevertheless bears the responsibility for the costs himself. At best, he can then try to sue the deliverer (in Brombeeri’s case: the police!) as the client.

This is a very unsatisfactory ruling. The result is that injured cats and other injured animals are not protected!

Although animal welfare legislation requires that animals not be allowed to suffer, the federal government and the cantons still refuse to take sustainable measures to combat the suffering of cats. Those responsible are not held accountable, even though they bear responsibility for the misery. In the absence of a ban on killing, there is not even a reasonable justification required in Switzerland, and the euthanasia of healthy animals is demanded far too quickly and, unfortunately, often carried out. Veterinarians are often forced to carry out this unpleasant decision, which is particularly stressful for veterinarians who are committed to animal welfare. This is one more reason not to want to offer emergency services, as traffic accidents involving animals occur mainly at night. The lack of emergency services is at the expense of all animal owners who urgently need them and are willing to pay for them when necessary.

For veterinarians who are committed to animal welfare, the primary concern when treating an injured animal is not the cost of treatment, but the welfare of the animal. Clinics with a 24-hour emergency service regularly receive injured stray animals whose owners have not (yet) been found. They consider it their duty to stabilise these animals medically as quickly as possible and to perform any emergency operations if there is a chance of restoring their quality of life. This is also in the interests of owners who are missing their beloved pets. As there is a shortage of veterinarians in Switzerland and fewer and fewer veterinarians offer emergency services, there are fewer and fewer places for people who find such patients to take them. Since the perpetrators of traffic accidents regularly commit hit-and-run offences, even though their insurance would normally have to cover the damage, and the police do not make any serious efforts to find the perpetrators in the case of animals, the question of costs is almost always unresolved and veterinarians are forced to treat the patients without covering their costs. In addition to the expense, there is also the risk of being left with the costs or, at best, having to collect them with a great deal of additional effort and still not seeing any money in the end. The possibility of claiming the costs from the person who brought the animal does not help a veterinarian, because the threat of euthanasia immediately arises.

We would like to see a nationwide solution to this problem in Switzerland so that such cases do not continue to be dealt with by veterinarians and animal welfare organisations, who are regularly at the end of the chain. Veterinarians should be happy to provide emergency services. Caring people should want to help animals in need and not have to look away for fear of having to bear the costs. Under no circumstances should animals be abandoned or euthanised, even though they have a good chance of regaining their quality of life, simply because no one wants to cover the costs or because they have ended up in this situation due to a chain of unfortunate circumstances (hit-and-run, owner does not come forward, fear of costs).

Possible solutions

The Brombeeri case is not an isolated incident and is representative of a large number of similar cases. Possible solutions could include: