A loving pet may be worth more than the cost of replacing it but seeing a dog suffer a violent death is not the same as witnessing a close human relative be killed, the state Supreme Court ruled this week.
The ruling set a legal limit on the value of pets in a world where they’re often considered part of the family.
The decision came Tuesday in a lawsuit over damages when a bigger mixed-breed dog mauled Joyce McDougall’s 9-year-old Maltese-poodle mix during a walk through their Morris Plains neighborhood in 2007.
McDougall sued Charlot Lamm, the other dog’s owner, for compensatory damages and for the emotional distress she says she suffered from seeing her pet, named Angel, killed violently. The other dog has since been euthanized.
The provision she sought to use came from a 1980 ruling that found that seeing a close relative’s death causes emotional distress. Since then, state courts have broadened the group from relatives a bit. A woman whose fiance was killed was allowed to make the claim, as was a man whose 5-year-old neighbor died despite the man’s attempt to rescue him.
In court filings, McDougall said the dog was a constant companion, particularly after she and her husband separated and their three children grew up and moved out.
A lower court ruled that the compensation for the dog’s loss should be $5,000 – nearly four times the $1,300 cost of a new puppy of the same kind. But the court dismissed the emotional distress claim.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed with that ruling.
“Although we recognize that many people form close bonds with their pets, we conclude that those bonds do not rise to the level of a close familial relationship or intimate, marital-like bond,” Justice Helen Hoens wrote in her opinion.
Lamm’s lawyer, Brian O’Toole, said that as a dog lover, he found the case to be painful and poignant. But he said the court got it right. If a person could be compensated for the loss of a pet, he said, it could open the door to emotional damages for destroyed family heirlooms.
“Where does it end?” he asked.
McDougall’s lawyer, Lewis Stein, said he could not overcome the state Supreme Court’s fears that the court system would be overwhelmed with claims and that juries would have a tricky job separating real from imagined emotional distress if McDougall’s claim had been allowed to stand.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.