DOG OWNERS WIN IN PRECEDENT-SETTING CASE
As opposed to the law in other states, it has long been the law in California that if a third party causes the death or injury to a person's dog that the damages available to the dog owner are limited to the cost of the medical bills (ie., the vet's bill) or the "fair market value" of the dog if it dies. The only exception might be if the dog had a documented history of creating income for its owner, like if it was a show dog or a pedigree breeder.
Emotional distress damages to the owner due to the injury or death of the dog caused by the acts or omissions of a third party have otherwise been routinely prohibited under California law, keeping in accord with the general law of the state that the loss to personal property (and which a dog technically is) is limited to the cost of repair or the fair market value of the property, whichever is less. In the case of a typical household pet, the fair market value on Fido is de minimus.
In a recent appellate decision that appears to create "new law", an appellate court upheld an award of emotional distress damages awarded by a jury to a dog owner when his obnoxious neighbor struck and injured his min pin with a baseball bat.
What appears to have persuaded the appellate court in doing so was the defendant's violation of a prior mutual restraining order agreed to with the plaintiff, the intentional nature of the attack on the dog, the fact that it is foreseeable that dog owners would suffer mental distress if a person were to injure or kill their dog in a wrongful act, and that other states have allowed emotional distress damages to the dog owner in similar circumstances.
You can access the case on-line for further further details of the underlying facts and the court's reasoning. See Plotnik v. Meihaus, California appellate decision case number G045885, as decided on August 31, 2012.
As the plaintiffs' trial attorney in this case, please be advised that the family values their privacy and will not be commenting at this time. My own personal thoughts revolve around the fact that the relationship between a family and their dog can be very special and very unique. Most of us will acknowledge that there is no other domestic animal to which a person can become so attached. Harm or death to the family dog, especially at the hands of another person, will understandably be keenly felt. Under the appropriate facts and circumstances, someone intentionally setting out to cause such harm can now be held fully accountable for the injuries and damages to both the dog and its owners. I'm very comfortable with this decision and am glad for the family.
ReplyDeletehttp://jacksonandwilson.com/appellate-law-dog-owner-rights/