USDA

Animal Welfare Act
AWA Case Law
AWA Regulations
Proposed Regulations
Final Rules
APHIS - Animal Care

NIH

Health Research Extension
Act of 1985
NIH Revitalization Act of 1993
Public Health Service Regs
NIH Policy on Animal Care in the Intramural Program
Office of Animal Care
Office of Lab Animal Welfare
ICCVAM / NICEATM

DoD

Use of Animals in Research

EPA

Good Laboratory Practices

FDA

Good Laboratory Practices

VA

VA Policy on Animal Research
MOU with NIH

NON GOVERNMENT ORGS

AAALAC
AALAS
ACLAM
ASLAP
Association of Primate Vets
Nuffield Council on Bioethics

RESOURCES

Bibliography
Links
Search the site

INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

---

Case Law
States Authorizing Recovery
States Denying Recovery
News Articles
Other Items of Interest

---

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of lawsuits are being filed each year seeking damages for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress in cases in which an animal has been injured or killed. This section of the website will compile select state case law from state courts that have considered this issue.

CASE LAW

---

States Authorizing Recovery
for Infliction of Emotional Distress

Alaska Florida Hawaii Idaho Kentucky Louisiana

States Denying Recovery
for Infliction of Emotional Distress

Arizona Connecticut Iowa Massachusetts Michigan Nebraska New York Ohio Pennsylvania Texas Washington West Virginia Wisconsin

---

States Authorizing Recovery
for Infliction of Emotional Distress

---

Richardson v. Fairbanks North Star Borough (Alaska)
Aug. 30, 1985
Owners of pet dog sought to recover against borough for damages allegedly sustained by them when dog was mistakenly killed by an employee of borough animal shelter. The court stated "we are willing to recognize a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress for the intentional or reckless killing of a pet animal in an appropriate case." However, in this case, the court held the severity of owners' alleged mental and emotional suffering when their pet dog was mistakenly killed did not warrant a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Read the case (pdf)

La Porte v. Associated Independents, Inc. (Florida)
April 3, 1964
Pet owner filed suit for damages resulting from emotional distress for alleged malicious killing of pet dog by garbage collector. The Florida Supreme Court held that element of owner's mental suffering as the result of the malicious destruction of her dog was properly submitted to the jury for their consideration in assessing damages.
Read the case (pdf)

However, distinguished by Kennedy v. Byas (pdf), 98 P.3d 1232 (2004).

Campbell v. Animal Quarantine Station (Hawaii)
Aug. 26, 1981
Action was filed seeking damages for death of family dog due to alleged negligence of defendants. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that: (1) plaintiffs need not witness tortious event in order to recover damages for serious mental distress; (2) medical proof or expert testimony was not required to substantiate plaintiffs' claim of serious mental distress; and (3) damages for injured feelings and mental distress suffered through loss of family dog, which was personal property, were proper items of recovery.
Read the case (pdf)

Gill v. Brown (Idaho)
Feb. 8, 1985
Animal owners brought suit seeking to recover damages sustained when Brown allegedly shot and killed a donkey owned by the Gills. The Gills sought recovery both for property damage and for mental anguish. The trial court ordered that claim for mental anguish be stricken from the complaint. The Court of Appeals held that by alleging defendant's conduct was reckless and that owners thereby suffered extreme mental anguish and trauma, owners alleged facts that, if proven, could permit recovery under intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action, though owners did not allege that they suffered any physical injury.
Read the case (pdf)

Burgess v. Taylor (Kentucky)
March 9, 2001
Owner of pet horses sued boarders of horses who sold them for slaughter, asserting tort of outrage, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that: (1) element of tort of outrage, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, requiring outrageous and intolerable conduct depends on conduct of wrongdoer, not subject of conduct; (2) boarders' actions constituted tort of outrage; and (3) award of $50,000 compensatory damages and $75,000 punitive damages was not excessive.
Read the case (pdf)

Brown v. Crocker (Louisiana)
Decided April 4, 1962
Action was brought to recover value of quarter horse mare and stillborn colt and damages occasioned by shock and mental anguish suffered following wounding of mare by shotgun blast intentionally inflicted by defendant. The District Court, Parish of Red River, awarded damages for loss of stillborn colt and shock and anguish but denied recovery for death of mare, and plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal, Ayres, J., held that award of $250 for shock and mental anguish was justified.
Read the case (pdf)

---

States Denying Recovery
for Infliction of Emotional Distress

---

Roman v. Carroll (Arizona)
Dec. 19, 1980
Action was brought to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress caused when plaintiff witnessed defendants' St. Bernard dismember her poodle while she was walking the dog near her home. The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff could not recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress under such circumstances because the dog was personal property.
Read the case (pdf)

Pantelopoulos v. Pantelopoulos (Connecticut)
Jan. 13, 2005
Plaintiff filed an action seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging her former husband intentionally allowed her pet to starve to death while in his custody. The court denied the claim, noting neither Connecticut nor New Jersey recognizes a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with the loss of a pet. Quoting another opinion, the court provided several reasons why such actions have not been permited:

Read the case (pdf)

Myers v. City of Hartford (Connecticut)
Aug 10, 2004
Dog owner brought an action against city animal control officer and city manager for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress after her dog was removed from her premises and euthanized. The Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, granted defendants' motion for a directed verdict. Owner appealed. The Appellate Court, held that owner failed to set forth a valid common-law claim against city employees, noting that "[o]ur 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."
Read the case (pdf)

Altieri v. Nanavati (Connecticut)
Dec. 11, 1989
Plaintiff in this suit filed an action against a veterinarian for negligence, claiming that the defendant performed unwanted surgery on the plaintiff's dog, a Lhasa Apso. Several issues were considered in this case, including plaintiffs' damage claim for their emotional distress as a result of the dog's condition. The court noted that "the [Connecticut] Supreme Court recently held that there can be no bystander emotional disturbance claims arising from medical malpractice on another person. There is no reason to believe that malpractice on the family pet will receive higher protection than malpractice on a child or spouse. . . . Neither party has produced any Connecticut law on this issue, and the named defendant has not shown that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law at this time. Accordingly, it would be academic for the court to resolve the proper elements of damages for injury to the dog at this time. Damages are generally limited to the market value of the dog, although other damages are sometimes allowed.
Read the case (pdf)

Nichols v. Sukaro Kennels (Iowa)
Nov. 20, 1996
Owners of pet dog sued kennel for damages to compensate owners for injuries and suffering incurred by dog and loss of aesthetic intrinsic value of dog. The Supreme Court held that: (1) owners could not recover damages for mental distress based on sentimental attachment to dog, and (2) owners could not recover damages for replacement cost or for pet's special value.
Read the case (pdf)

Krasnecky v. Meffen (Massachusetts)
Decided Nov. 12, 2002
Sheep owners sought damages for emotional distress, loss of companionship and society and trespass against owners of dogs who entered sheep owners' property and slaughtered sheep. The Appeals Court held that: (1) sheep owners could not recover for emotional distress of finding that sheep had been slaughtered in their absence; (2) sheep owners had no cognizable claim for loss of companionship and society; and (3) evidence was insufficient to support claim for trespass.

The court did not directly address the issue of whether damages could be obtained for emotional distress resulting from the loss of a companion animal. The court noted that for the most part, the class of persons allowed such recovery has been limited to a parent or other person closely related to the injured person. "Whether that class may be expanded to include persons who suffer the loss of a companion animal is a novel question in this jurisdiction. In the factual circumstances of this case, however, we do not reach that issue." Later in the opinion, Justice Jacobs wrote, "It would be illogical, however, to accord the plaintiffs greater rights than would be recognized in the case of a person who suffers emotional distress as a result of the tortiously caused death of a member of his immediate family."
Read the case (pdf)

Koester v. VCA Animal Hospital (Michigan)
Decided Dec. 26, 2000
Dog owner brought negligence action against veterinarian and animal hospital after death of dog seeking damages including owner's pain and suffering, extreme fright, shock, mortification, and loss of companionship. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that owner could not properly plead and recover for emotional injuries allegedly suffered as consequence of dog being killed, in light of characterization of dog as personal property.
Read the case (pdf)

Fackler v. Genetzky (Nebraska)
June 18, 1999
Owners of racehorses brought action against veterinarian, arising out of deaths of two racehorses, alleging professional negligence and fraudulent billing, and seeking damages for emotional distress. The District Court, Dakota County, Mark J. Fuhrman, J., granted series of summary judgment motions in favor of veterinarian, and horse owners appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that: (1) genuine issue of material fact as to whether veterinarian's actions comported with professional standard of care in treating racehorses precluded summary judgment; (2) owners were not entitled to recover damages for their emotional distress as result of veterinarian's alleged negligent destruction of horses; and (3) veterinarian was not liable to owners for alleged fraudulent billing. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Read the case (pdf)

Johnson v. Douglas (New York)
March 12, 2001
Automobile driver moved to dismiss claims of pet owners for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and punitive damages from witnessing the death of their dog. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, Zelda Jonas, J., held that pet owners could not recover for emotional distress based upon an alleged negligent or malicious destruction of a dog, which was deemed to be personal property. (Note: In NY, the county Supreme Court is generally a trial court, not an appellate court).
Read the case (pdf)

Jason v. Parks (New York)
February 13, 1996
This was a veterinary malpractice case in which the plaintiff sought damages for emotional distress. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department, held that it "is well established that a pet owner in New York cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligent destruction of a dog." Read the case (pdf)

Gluckman v. American Airlines, Inc. (New York)
Feb. 9, 1994
Airline passenger sued airline for damages arising out of death of his dog after it suffered heat stroke in cargo hold of airplane. On airline's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, the Federal District Court (applying New York state law) held that: (1) passenger could not recover emotional distress damages based upon loss of property; (2) there was no independent cause of action for loss of companionship of pet; (3) there was no cause of action for pain and suffering of animal; and (4) genuine issue of material fact as to whether liability limitations were reasonably communicated to passenger precluded summary judgment for airline.
Read the case (pdf)

Fowler v. Town of Ticonderoga (New York)
June 4, 1987
This was a case in which the plaintiff sought damages for emotional distress following the killing of his dog. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Department, held that "a dog is personal property and damages may not be recovered for mental distress caused by its malicious or negligent destruction."
Read the case (pdf)

Young v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (New York)
October 21, 1980
This was a airline negligence case in which the plaintiff sought damages for emotional distress. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, held that "New York law does not permit recovery for mental suffering and emotional disturbance as an element of damages for loss of a passenger's property nor does this appear to be a case where punitive damages could be awarded under New York law."
Read the case (pdf)

Strawser v. Wright (Ohio)
Decided July 27, 1992
Purchaser of puppy who died allegedly as result of not receiving general newborn vaccination brought action against seller for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of seller, and purchaser appealed. The Court of Appeals held that purchaser did not have cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Read the case (pdf)

Miller v. Peraino (Pennsylvania)
Argued Feb. 9, 1993
Veterinarian brought action against dog owners for defamation, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The dog owners counterclaimed, including a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is the sole issue in the case before this court. The Superior Court held that the lower court's dismissal of dog owner's intentional infliction claim was not an abuse of discretion.
Read the case (pdf)

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster (Texas)
April 29, 2004
A Dog-owner filed suit against a pet store to recover damages allegedly incurred when the dog was killed in traffic after escaping from a pet groomer. A Texas District Court, Travis County, entered a default judgment in favor of the dog-owner and awarded damages. Pet store appealed.

The Court of Appeals, Bob Pemberton, J., held, among other things, that: dog-owner was not entitled to damages for mental anguish, absent pet store's ill-will, animus or desire to harm her personally; dog-owner was not entitled to intrinsic value (loss of companionship) damages; dog-owner was not entitled to exemplary (punitive) damages. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Read the case (pdf)

Zeid v. Pearce (Texas)
July 10, 1997
Dog owners brought veterinary malpractice claim against veterinarian based on of death of dog after vaccination. The County Court at Law dismissed lawsuit. Owners appealed. The Court of Appeals held that owners could not maintain cause of action where only damages sought were for pain and suffering and mental anguish.
Read the case (pdf)

Pickford v. Masion (Washington)
Decided Sep 08, 2004
Dog owner whose pet was mauled by other dogs brought action for negligent and malicious infliction of emotional distress and destruction of guardian-companion animal relationship against owners of other dogs. The trial court entered partial summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals, Armstrong, J., held that plaintiff could not recover for negligent or malicious infliction of emotional distress, and the cause of action for destruction of companionship relationship did not extend to death or injury to dog. Affirmed.
Read the case (pdf)

Julian v. DeVincent (West Virginia)
Decided Nov. 2, 1971
Owners of dog were awarded $100 in damages for sentimental value and mental cruelty to their children when their dog was killed by defendant's dog. The Supreme Court of Appeals held that plaintiff could not recover damages for dog in absence of showing of its value.
Read the case (pdf)

Rabideau v. City of Racine (Wisconsin)
June 12, 2001
Owner of companion dog brought action against city after city police officer shot and killed dog. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that: (1) public policy precluded owner's claim for damages based upon the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) absent evidence that officer acted for purpose of causing her emotional harm, owner failed to establish claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) liberally read, dog owner's complaint encompassed a claim for damages for property loss.
Read the case (pdf)

NEWS ARTICLES

Judge Says Pet Is Property, Not Companion
Throws out Part of $1.6M Lawsuit Over Dog's Killing
ABC News - -May 25, 2006
A dispute between two Estacada, Ore., neighbors turned tragic when 63-year-old Raymond Weaver intentionally ran over his neighbor's dog two years ago. The neighbor's beloved Grizz was so badly injured that doctors were forced to euthanize the 14-year-old Labrador retriever-cocker spaniel mix.
Read the article

Animal Law Clinic at Lewis & Clark Law School wins first case it takes to trial
National Center for Animal Law, Lewis & Clark Law School
Read the document (Word Document)

Barking up the Wrong Tree
Richard L. Cupp, Jr.
Los Angeles Times, June 22, 1998
Read the Article (pdf)

Other Items of Interest

Resolution on Animal Guardianship and Liability Legislation

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

(current congressional session)
Bills Introduced
New Laws Enacted
Private Right of Action &
Standing under AWA

STATE ACTIVITIES

Animal Cruelty
Ownership v. Guardianship
Personhood for Animals
Pet Custody Disputes
Pet Trusts

Tort Law
Overview
Non-Economic Damages
Emotional Distress
Loss of Companionship
Primary Interests of a Chimp
Veterinarian Malpractice

Ballot Initiatives
Summary

EDUCATION

Dissection

Law Schools
Animal Law Courses
Student Groups

BAR ASSOCIATIONS

American Bar Association
State Bar Associations
Local/Regional Bar Associations

RESOURCES

News Articles
Law Review Articles
Quotes
Bibliography
Advocacy Links