How one state treats injuries to pets

States differ in how they treat injuries to pets. An in-depth look at the law of California provides insights about all states that regard dogs and cats as property.

The traditional rule - no damages for non-economic losses

The old, traditional rule of damages for injuries to dogs is stated in California Penal Code sec. 491, "Dogs are personal property, and their value is to be ascertained in the same manner as the value of other property.” This law was passed in the 1800s. The same principle has been applied to cats and other animals.

The traditional rule says essentially that the responsible party must merely pay either the veterinarian bills or the replacement cost of the animal. For example, in Dreyer v. Cyriacks 112 Cal.App. 279, 297 P. 35 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., Feb. 28, 1931), the owner of "Peter the Great," a dog who worked in the motion picture industry, sued an individual who fired a weapon in the direction of the dog owner's automobile following a quarrel. Not knowing that the dog was in the vehicle, the man killed the dog. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict of $100,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages was excessive. The court said that the value of human lives and the value of dogs were not to be measured by the same standard:

"With reference to the question of the amount of the verdict, plaintiffs have cited us to an array of cases from thirty states of the Union and from England and Canada. But not one of them relates to the destruction of an animal. They all concern the death of or injury to human beings, and it is absurd to argue that in fixing damages the value of human lives and the value of dogs are to be measured by the same standard. As declared in section 491 of the Penal Code, "Dogs are personal property, and their value is to be ascertained in the same manner as the value of other property," but certainly the value of a human life is not to be so determined. (112 Cal.App. 279, 284-285.) 

In a dog owner's action to recover from a motorist who struck the dog with his automobile and, allegedly to put it out of its misery, then shot the dog, which was a 15-month-old purebred Weimaraner registered female, the court, in Wells v. Brown, 97 Cal. App. 2d 361, 217 P.2d 995 (4th Dist. 1950), affirming a verdict for the dog owner, held that the $1,500 verdict was supported by the evidence. The court pointed to the testimony of a witness that, among other things, the dog "would be worth from three to five thousand dollars."

Example - economic losses awardage when dog is a producer of income

Income attributable to the dog is admissible on the question of the dog's value. For example, experts testified that a performing dog could earn more than $100,000, and the court awarded $5,000 in compensatory damages. Mitchell v. Union Pac. R. Co., 188 F. Supp. 869 (S.D. Cal. 1960). In that case, a dog named "Pudsy" was being transported by railroad, and died from exposure to excessive heat. The owner sued the railroad and testified that the value of the dog exceeded $100,000. He also presented expert witnesses who testified that the dog could earn in excess of $100,000. This figure was based on the owner's claims that the dog could give answers of problems in addition, subtraction, and division in any combination up to 20 by a number of barks. The owner further testified that (1) the only prompting given to the dog was his tone of voice, (2) the dog would bark the number of spots appearing on a playing card without signal except being shown the card, (3) the dog was six years old and had never been exhibited professionally but had been shown at a number of charitable shows in Ireland, and (4) the dog was known as the "wonder dog of Ireland." The owner was awarded $5,000 in economic damages, which the court said was not excessive under the circumstances.

Changes in California law since the 1980s - mental anguish damages possible

In a state like California, there is little appellate authority, and no statutory authority, for the proposition that a dog owner can recover compensation for mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of companionship, sentimental value of the pet, quality of life, or other intangible losses. The closest case supporting such recovery is Katsaris v. Cook 225 Cal.Rptr. 531 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 1986). That decision held that dumping dead dogs into a ditch and pretending not to know what happened to them, after lawfully killing the dogs, can result in mental distress damages.

Another useful case for the dog owner is Gonzales v. Personal Storage, Inc. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 464. The Gonzales case is not a dog case but it can be used under some circumstances to recover damages for mental anguish. A self-storage facility converted approximately $60,000 of a tenant's personal property. The court ruled that the facility was liable for the severe emotional distress the tenant suffered when she learned about the conversion. The court's ruling was founded upon the law of conversion of personal property. "[W]e conclude that notwithstanding further developments in the law of negligence, damages for emotional distress growing out of a defendant's conversion of personal property are recoverable." (56 Cal.App.4th at p. 477.) Although this does not apply to pet food, it can support a pro-dog owner decision if the defendant unlawfully had control of a dog. In such a case, it could be argued that menal anguish damages are recoverable.

Punitive damages

California Civil Code section 3340 provides that, "[f]or wrongful injuries to animals being subjects of property, committed willfully or by gross negligence, in disregard of humanity, exemplary damages may be given." This is not support for mental distress, but rather a form of punishment for the defendant's inhumane treatment of the animal. There also are criminal laws to prevent animal cruelty, but they are not discussed here because the focus here is civil remedies.

The law is changing

It appears clear that the law of damages is changing when it comes to pets injured in California. There have been a number of reports of settlements where substantial damages were awarded. Attorney Kenneth Phillips had a case in which a Los Angeles woman, afflicted with muscular dystrophy, suffered terribly when her companion dog was killed before her eyes. The claim was settled for an appropriate, five-figure amount of money, which was paid under a homeowner insurance policy.

While California is lagging behind many other states in how pets are valued, therefore, it is hoped that the legislature will pass new laws which will treat pet owners fairly and justly.