No Relief for Emotional Distress for Loss of A Pet
I recently received a phone call inquiry regarding the availability of money for emotional damages available to the owner of a pet. The call was made from a Connecticut resident.
This issue, as we have previously discussed, is very state specific.
At least one case in Connecticut has denied such a recovery.
In Pantelopoulos v. Pantelopoulos, 49 Conn.Supp. 209 (2005), the issue before the Court was the death of the family dog.
At the end of a not so friendly divorce proceeding, the wife left the residence and also left the husband’s dog alone without food or water.
The dog did not survive and the distraught ex-husband sued for damages for emotional distress for the death of his dog.
The Court, applying the laws of both New Jersey and Connecticut found:
1) In order to prevail in a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress, four elements must be established: 1) that the actor intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; 2) that the conduct was extreme and outrageous; 3) that the defendant’s conduct was the cause of the plaintiff’s distress; 4) that the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was severe. Whether a defendant’s conduct is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that it be extreme and outrageous is initially a question for the court to determine; only where reasonable minds disagree does it become an issue for the jury.
2) There is no authority which supports the plaintiff’s argument that New Jersey recognizes an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for the loss of a pet.
3) There is no New Jersey precedent permitting a pet owner to recover non-economic damages when a pet is negligently injured or killed.
4) Connecticut common law has never recognized a right to sue an individual for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress resulting from injury to such property as a pet.
In this case, the Court denied all recovery for the death of the dog.
Pet Custody Dispute Heads to Texas Court
There are probably more pets in this country than there are children.
Therefore, it is no coincidence that pet custody cases are on the rise.
We have discussed many times, such as here and here that although pet owners consider their animals a part of the family, most courts still consider them only to be personal property.
Here is another reported case involving a“custody “dispute over a pet
The Southeast Texas Record recently reported on a custody story. According to reporter, David Yates, the facts are as follows:
" A run-of-the-mill family feud has spilled into the civil realm over custody of a pet.
Given power of attorney by his father, a disgruntled brother has filed suit against his sister. The issue: the sister allegedly made off with the father's dog, Little Vicky.
Seeking punitive and mental anguish damages, J.W. Rogers sued his dog-nabbing sister, Lauren Jean Freedman, on June 9.
On Father's Day six years ago, J.W. Rogers and his wife Debbie gave his father Victor Rogers a dog named "Little Vicky," according to the suit.
"Little Vicky became a loyal and trusted companion and informal therapy dog to Victor Rogers," the suit states. "Little Vicky routinely slept next to Victor Rogers or bedside. Little Vicky also became somewhat of a watch dog for the household at night."
In his suit, J.W. goes on to say Victor is an animal lover and Little Vicky was a source of happiness for him until his sister robbed her father's happiness when she came to visit him at his Beaumont home during the 2008 Passover holiday.
"When Defendant Freedman returned to California, she took Victor Rogers' dog with her without permission or approval," the suit says.
"In fact, perhaps knowing she was acting inappropriately, she simply left a voicemail for J.W. Rogers telling him she was taking Little Vicky. Little Vicky is greatly missed by Victor Rogers. J.W. Rogers has made numerous attempts to have the dog returned to his father, all to no avail."
J.W. says he is entitled to recover conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, actual damages and punitive damages from his sister for her wrongful behavior.
He is demanding a jury trial..."
It will be interesting to follow this case and the decision that is rendered in this fact situation.
It may be another small step in the evolving law of pets as personal property.
Pets as Personal Property in Indiana
We had a recent inquiry about the possible recovery for emotional distress for an owner of a pet in the State of Indiana.
In March of this year, the Court of Appeals again addressed this issue in the case of Keene v. The State of Indiana
The facts in the case are as follows:
..."On November 28, 2004, Keene shot two dogs while hunting on a friend’s property. The two dogs were not on their owner’s property and were seen chasing a deer. The next day, Keene contacted the DNR and notified them that he had shot the two dogs while hunting. On December 9, 2004, he was charged with two counts of Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.
Melissa Culbertson (“Culbertson”) owned the two dogs. On November 28, 2004, Culbertson noticed that her dogs were missing so the next day she hired a private investigation firm to look into the matter. Culbertson paid $2,501 for this service. When the dogs’ bodies were found, Culbertson had an autopsy performed by her veterinarian that cost $640. The replacement value of each of the dogs was $800. Also, the Culbertson family sought professional counseling in the amount of $540 concerning the loss of their dogs. Finally, Culbertson claimed that she had missed a week of work and took an additional seven days off work to attend court proceedings in this case. She testified that she made over $500,000 per year, yet provided no documentation of this amount. Culbertson claimed $3,000 for one day of lost wages. The trial court determined that she earned $2,500 per day. Culbertson requested $10,890.87 for restitution for the above expenses and for other expenses disallowed by the trial court.
On February 6, 2007, Keene pleaded guilty to both counts of criminal mischief and the trial court sentenced him the same day. The trial court ordered Keene to pay restitution and ordered the Victim’s Assistance office to determine the amount. That office filed a restitution order in the amount of $10,890.87, to which Keene objected. Keene is a truck driver who earns $25,000 per year. He has a twelfth grade education and few possibilities of earning more than his current wage as a truck driver.
After a restitution hearing on May 17, 2007, the trial court ordered Keene to pay restitution in the amount of $1,600 for both dogs, $640 for veterinary autopsy costs, $2,510 for the private investigator, $540 for counseling, and $6,000 for two days of lost income, for a total of $11,290. Keene now appeals..."
Although the Appeals Court ruled on a number of issues, it was clear that the value of the loss of the dogs to Culberson was equal to only the replacement cost as personal property under Indiana Code section 35-50-5-3.
Your pets may be priceless to you.
But in this case at least, there would be no monetary relief, or loss, for a companion animal nor emotional distress for the owner of a dog, in the Hoosier State.
