How on earth did PETA gain legal representation of an animal? Tort reform is WAY overdue in this country
In the same way that organizations can have legal representation of other non-person entities.
Animals are something of a special case - we accord them certain rights (animal cruelty laws come to mind, also disputes over ownership I imagine) and in such cases... someone has to represent them. Kind of like how someone has to represent the best interests of minor children in legal situations and whatnot.
Not really seeing how that's related to torts, though. There's either a law on the books that would allow a suit to be brought, or there isn't. Whether or not the entity with standing to sue is represented by another entity isn't really relevant to the tort itself.
Animal rights (such as cruelty) are represented by the law of the land. That would allow legal representation of a body (animals, or a herd, or an identified group) in the form of a government body (Animal Control). This...this is just someone applying for civil relief for a individual personal cause. They ruined a person just because of an act of nature ( the monkey took his own picture, the photag never made a claim of right). There was no intention of relief, this was twisting the law for a political agenda.
As for tort law, a tort is " A body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm". Saying a wild monkey has the same civil rights as a human is akin to saying hunters need to be sued for distress for hunting deer. What's next, we sue Dow Chemical for giving roaches cancer?
Okies, I'll get off my soap box. No reason to get Bill in here swinging the ban stick
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!