Kate Bishop makes a death-defying rescue of a brave golden retriever in Episode 1 of Hawkeye. The two quickly bond and Pizza Dog/Lucky becomes the best good-boy superhero ever. But given that Pizza Dog is a stray, what ownership interest, if any, does Kate have in her new sidekick?
Generally, animals are regarded as the property of the owner, so lost animals may trigger property law duties and obligations for people who find the lost animal. As an initial observation, this property right in one’s domesticated pets has been around only since the late 1800s. Back then, dogs were regarded as “qualified” property given their limited utility to the owners when compared to livestock like cattle or horses. For example, in 1897, a U.S. Supreme Court case described dogs as having “no intrinsic value” and not useful “as beasts of burden, for draught, nor for food.” Sentell v. New Orleans & C.R. Co., 166 U.S. 698, 701 (1897). I think we can all agree that Pizza Dog has obvious intrinsic value, which calls into serious question the validity of this Supreme Court case authority.
In any event, modern law views dogs as property. So when a person finds and takes possession of lost chattels, the common law creates an implied bailment in the property. Therefore, as of Episode 1 of Hawkeye, Kate Bishop is a gratuitous bailee of Pizza Dog. This is a contractual agreement between Kate and Pizza Dog’s previous owner, and Kate now owes a duty to take reasonable care of Pizza Dog and, if possible, return him to his true owner. It’s questionable whether feeding a dog a bunch of cheese pizza is taking optimal care of him, but at least Kate has provided him with shelter and other basic necessities, including generous pats.
So when it comes to Kate’s property interest, the first question is whether Pizza Dog was lost or whether he counts as abandoned property. If Pizza Dog was abandoned, then the owner has relinquished their property rights and Kate now has title to him.
On the other hand, if he was merely lost or ran away, then Kate’s title is superior to everyone but the true owner. As in most jurisdictions, the remedy in New York to recover lost personal property or chattels from a wrongful possessor is a replevin action, Gates v. Bowers, 169 N.Y. 14, 61 N.E. 993 (1901), so if Pizza Dog is lost, Kate may have to relinquish him if sued for replevin.
But as with all equitable actions, the recovery would be subject to equitable defenses, including unclean hands or laches if the true owner unduly delays their efforts. And these equitable defenses may be of significance given that Kate and Pizza Dog rapidly form a strong emotional bond, and the harm of losing possession may outweigh the true owner’s interest in recovering him. Ultimately, I would argue that the scales of justice tip strongly in favor of preserving the superhuman and superdog connection, and Kate and Pizza Dog can hopefully look forward to a long, happy future of fighting bad guys together.
