Emotional Distress Claim for a Pet in Idaho
Is it true that an animal owner may recover money damages for mental anguish for the loss of a pet in Idaho?
Paul Ammon, Idaho
Paul… at least in one case...in 1985, in the case of Gill v. Brown, 107 Idaho 1137, 695 P.2d 1276 (Idaho App.1985), the Idaho Appellate Court reversed a lower trial court that had dismissed a claim for intentional inflection of emotional distress by the owner of an animal that had been killed by another.
In this case, Brown allegedly shot and killed a donkey owned by Gill.
In rendering its decision, the Court stated:
"The measure of damages when personal property is destroyed by the tortious conduct of another is the fair market value of the property at the time of its destruction. Bratton v. Slininger, 93 Idaho 248, 460 P.2d 383 (1969); Skaggs Drug Centers, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, 90 Idaho 1, 407 P.2d 695 (1965). In the case of destroyed animals, the majority of jurisdictions use this measure and specifically deny recovery for mental anguish suffered by the property owner. Annot., 1 A.L.R.3d 997, 1010 (1965). We are not persuaded to depart from this general rule."
The Court went on to state;
"One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm. Under this view, a plaintiff may recover for mental anguish if the defendant's conduct was "outrageous" and if the mental anguish suffered was "severe". Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons, supra; Rasmuson v. Walker Bank & Trust Company, 102 Idaho 95, 625 P.2d 1098 (1981). In their complaint, the Gills allege that Brown "negligently and recklessly" shot and killed the donkey, that the donkey was both a pet and a pack animal, and that the loss of the donkey has caused the Gills to suffer "extreme mental anguish and trauma." By alleging that Brown's conduct was reckless and that they thereby suffered extreme mental anguish and trauma, the Gills have alleged facts that, if proven, could permit recovery under an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action."
The case was order to be returned to the trial court to determine whether or not the Gills could prove their allegations against the Browns.
Thus the door for possible recovery was reopened…
http://www.pettrustlawblog.com/admin/trackback/73126
