Many people in the U.S. share their lives with companion animals. In fact, the National Pet Owners Survey (APPA) reported that in 2021-2022 90.5 million households share their lives with at least one companion animal. When a companion animal is harmed by a person other than the owner, for example when their dog is injured or killed by another dog, hit by a car, or suffers harm resulting from the carelessness of a veterinarian during treatment, the owner is entitled to seek compensation for the damage caused. For some pet owners, the calculation of such compensation should consider the emotional injuries they suffer, because their pets play such an important role in their day to day, that their life is significantly impacted when someone harms their beloved family companion.
Unfortunately, this view is not yet reflected in the legal system. Companion animals and other domestic animals are given the same treatment the law gives to items such as a car or a TV. This is because, in the United States, the law classifies domestic animals as personal property. Companion animals are domestic animals with whom humans share their homes and lives. This legal classification has many ramifications, one of them being that animals as property do not have access to courts themselves. It is the pet owner who is considered the victim in tort law, rather than the companion animal, and it is the pet owner’s interest in his or her property that the law is set up to protect. The scope of damages available is also affected by this legal classification, as noneconomic or emotional damages such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of companionship are usually not recoverable for harm or destruction of property.
The rules for the award of pet damages vary from state to state. However, the traditional approach used by most states is the fair market value of the companion animal. Under this approach, the scope of recovery will depend on whether the defendant injured or killed the companion animal, and it is limited to the amount of money someone would be willing to pay for an animal with the same characteristics. Recovery under this approach is typically nominal and is not even enough to cover the attorney’s fee. This is just one of the obstacles in the journey of a pet owner who seeks compensation for the intentional or negligent harm done to their animal companion. Additionally. It is debatable that this is the rightful approach since companion animals hold a unique value to their owners and their owners only as there is not really a marketplace for owned pets.
Property owners can bring a lawsuit against someone that intentionally or negligently damaged or destroys their personal property. The owner of an item of personal property that is damaged or destroyed is entitled to recover the cost of repair (if the item is damaged) so long as it does not exceed the cost to replace it, which would be the recovery available if the item is destroyed. for instance, the owner of a car that is damaged in an accident, for example, would be entitled to recover the amount of money that would cost to repair the car. However, that recovery would be capped by the market value the specific car had before the accident. The law only recognizes the car’s economic value, and it would be irrelevant whether the car had a special meaning to the owner. In the majority of states, harm to companion animals is addressed in the same way.
Are pet owners concerned about the money they initially pay to bring a companion animal into their home? To some pet owners, the answer may be yes. Particularly those that have pure breed animals. Think about those pet owners with adopted pets. On average the adoption fee of a cat ranges between $25 – $200. Dog’s adoption fees range from $100 – $350. The situation might be even less favorable for those that have elderly or sick animals. Recently, an expert veterinarian in a case, testified that the plaintiff’s sick cat was worth $0.40. Filing a lawsuit against a defendant that harms your pet can cost thousands of dollars including attorney’s fees and other court costs. In most cases, the plaintiff would risk an amount of money that is far greater than what they could potentially recover.
In the case of companion animals, the cost of veterinary expenses to treat the animal would be the equivalent to the cost of repair, which in any event could not exceed the cost of buying a new dog of the same age, breed, and other characteristics, such as training in those states that follow the fair market value approach. In other words, the replacement cost. Some states have allowed recovery of veterinary expenses and even actual value to the human (purchase price, reasonable replacement costs, including some investments, etc.) when the companion animal does not have an ascertainable commercial value. Like in the case of mixed breeds, elderly, and sick pets.
Courts have historically denied recovery for these types of emotional injuries based on the common law precept that noneconomic damages are not available for damage or destruction of property. The relationship between humans and their companion animals has changed in the last 20 years. Dogs and cats have entered the home to play a role more similar to the one of a family member. Pet owners have attempted to push courts to recognize greater recovery of damages for many years, as they argue the value of their dogs and cats is more significant than the financial value they may hold. Some states have expanded the scope of recovery, but only a handful had allowed recovery based on the emotional impact suffered by the pet owner.