• Home
  • TRAINING FOR BEGINNERS
    • EXERCISES
    • PETS
  • CBD
  • PRODUCTS
  • TRENDING
  • PET NEWS
  • PET TRAVEL
  • Advertise Here
No Result
View All Result
Plugin Install : Cart Icon need WooCommerce plugin to be installed.
  • Home
  • TRAINING FOR BEGINNERS
    • EXERCISES
    • PETS
  • CBD
  • PRODUCTS
  • TRENDING
  • PET NEWS
  • PET TRAVEL
  • Advertise Here
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
Home PETS

C.A. Spurns Call for New Rule on Damages for Dog’s Death

by Doggone Well Staff
October 30, 2024
in PETS
37 2
0
C.A. Spurns Call for New Rule on Damages for Dog’s Death
32
SHARES
356
VIEWS
Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
Dog Food topper - Getquelle365


Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Wednesday, October 30, 2024

 

Page
1

Dog Food topper - Getquelle365

 

C.A. Spurns Call for New Rule on Damages for Dog’s Death

Fourth District Panel Declines to Part From Cases Limiting
Damages for Negligent Act Causing Demise of Pet; Opinion Rejects View That
Plaintiff Should Receive Recovery Based on ‘Actual Value’ of the Pet to Owner

 

By
Roger M. Grace, editor

 




Above is a snapshot of Bitty, an Irish Wolfhound, with
owner, Sierra Mowery. Bitty’s death resulted from admittedly negligent
treatment at El Centro Animal Clinic in Imperial County. Div. One of the
Fourth District Court of Appeal on Monday rejected Mowery’s contention that
damages should be based on the unique value of the animal to her.

Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has declined
to depart from the traditional view that no damages may be awarded for the loss
caused by the death of a pet through the negligence of the defendant, instead
limiting recoveries to the fair market value of the animal while alive, plus
the amount of veterinarian bills incurred in an effort to restore the pet’s
health.

The justices spurned the appellant’s call for adoption of a
standard based on the “actual value” of the animal to the plaintiff,
analogizing the loss to that of a family heirloom with special value. Santa
Monica attorney Scott Pomerantz, who represented plaintiff/appellant Sierra
Mowery in the trial court and on appeal, said yesterday that review will be
sought in the California Supreme Court.

Acting Presiding Justice Joan K. Irion authored the Fourth
District’s opinion, filed Monday. It affirms a judgment for $24,812.84 plus
costs that was stipulated to by the parties after Imperial Superior Court Judge
Jeffrey B. Jones granted a motion in limine barring Mowery from introducing
evidence that her dog, Bitty, “had a ‘peculiar’ or ‘unique’ value” to her.

Jones also barred evidence of “ ‘emotional distress,’ grief,
or loss of companionship, or any physical consequence of same” that Mowery
allegedly sustained as a result of the injury to, and death of Bitty, but that
ruling was not contested on appeal.

‘Piece of Property’

In making his rulings, Jones said that “as a piece of
property, normally, the value for the death of the dog is the value of the dog
at the time of its death if caused by negligence or other wrongful conduct,”
adding that, under decisional law, the cost of veterinarian bills is also
awardable as an exception to the rule that a plaintiff may only recover the
lesser of “the cost of repair or a replacement for depreciation.”

It is undisputed that defendant El Centro Animal Clinic, Inc.
was negligent, based on the symptoms of the dog, in failing to take X-rays of
Bitty, a six-year-old pre-bred Irish Wolfhound, which would have revealed a
gastrointestinal obstruction. The condition worsened and, following two
unsuccessful surgeries performed elsewhere, Bitty died.

The parties were in agreement that a family pet, rarely
adoptable, has no fair market value and that the amount spent on veterinarian
bills was $34,811.84, offset by a $9,999 payment by Dr. Oliver C. Kenagy in a
settlement.

Mowery’s Brief

Mowery’s opening brief on appeal, prepared by Pomerantz,
notes that “no Court of Appeal has published an opinion on how California law
assesses damages to the owners of pets whose lives are wrongfully taken” and
argued that “[p]et owners need a court to make the law clear so that trial
courts will be compelled to follow it.” It urged that decisions of sister
jurisdictions be taken into account.

The appellant contended in the brief:

“Unfortunately, California trial courts consistently deny
compensatory damages to pet owners for their deceased pets by applying the
market value approach. Trial courts might be trying to discourage
litigation by aggrieved pet owners. Whatever the reason this injustice has
persisted for decades and should be corrected.”

Irion’s opinion was not certified for publication, and views
expressed in out-of-state opinions cited by Mowery were not considered, with
the jurist explaining in a footnote:

“[W]e have applied settled California law on the measure of
damages to the specific facts of this case.  Because that law is sufficient to
resolve this appeal, we need not, and do not, consider the cases from other
states cited by Mowery.”

Out-of-State Cases

Among the out-of-state cases Mowery asked the Court of Appeal
to weigh was a 1938 decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin holding that
“family pictures and heirlooms, which cannot be replaced and are valuable only
to the owner may be compensated to the extent of the reasonable special value
of such articles to the owner.”

The brief points out that “[s]ince at least 1987 Illinois
courts have applied the ‘actual value’ measure of damages to family pets,”
quoting a 1987 opinion from that state’s First District Appellate Court as
saying that “there are a number of items of personal property that have no
market value” such as “heirlooms, photographs, trophies and pets.”

It holds that the “proper basis for assessing compensatory
damages in such a case is to determine the item’s actual value” to the
plaintiff, who is “entitled to demonstrate its value to him by such proof as
the circumstances admit.”

Georgia Opinion

Mowery’s opening brief cites a 1907 Georgia Supreme Court
opinion that says:

[A]nything to which a person may hold a legal title is
property, whether it has any market value or not. It may have intrinsic value,
but no exchangeable value. It may serve a useful purpose, and yet be unsalable
and unexchangeable. No one may want it, or have a use for it, except he
who possesses it, and yet to him it may be a thing of value; that is, of
intrinsic value, something that can be utilized in the accomplishment of his
purposes or the attainment of his desires.”

The brief comments:

“The importance in the legal system’s acknowledging this
‘intrinsic value’ becomes especially salient in the context of pets. Each year
hundreds of thousands of unadopted dogs and cats are euthanized. Yet many
pet owners would risk their lives to save their own pet.

“If pet owners do not have to risk their lives for their
animals they inevitably must open their wallets. According to a 2023 study
Californian dog owners lead the pack by spending more on their dogs than
in any other state—an average of $35,452 over the life of their dog. The
investment of time and money reflects that the value of pets to their owners is
very real.”

A footnote in the brief says:

“This appeal only addresses the proper measure of property
damage due to negligent acts. It already is well-established that pet owners
may recover emotional distress damages for intentional torts that harm a pet.”

Defendant’s View

Robert H. Stellwagen Jr., Tiffany E. Garrick, and James C.
Jardin of the Pasadena law firm of Collins + Collins maintained in El Centro’s
reply brief:

“This case presents no novel issues of law warranting the
Court’s consideration. The law governing pet owner recovery for veterinary
malpractice has long been established under California law, which permits the
recovery of reasonable expenses incurred in treating a family pet allegedly
harmed due to veterinary malpractice, even where those expenses exceed the
market value of the dog. This ‘reasonable value’ approach to recovery for
veterinary malpractice is in stark contrast to recovery for trespass to other
chattels, which limit recovery to the lesser of market value or repair costs in
the absence of evidence establishing an exception to the general rule
prohibiting such recovery.”

The reply brief declares:

“[P]et owner recovery for the death or injury of a pet as a
result of veterinary malpractice is limited to special damages in the absence
of intentional conduct. This rule has been consistently applied in California
for nearly two centuries.”

It contends that “[i]n the absence of a cognizable offer of
proof for recoverable special *24 damages in addition to the costs of
treatment, Mowery is limited to recovery of the reasonable costs of treatment.”

Emotional Distress

Although Mowery did not base her appeal on the granting of
the motion in limine (No. 1) barring evidence of emotional distress and loss of
companionship, much of Irion’s discussion centers on the correctness of Jones’s
ruling on that motion. Reciting the current legal view—which she embraced—Irion
wrote:

“[T]he owner of a tortiously injured pet with no market value
may recover the reasonable and necessary treatment costs and other special
expenses attributable to the injury.

“An owner of a pet that dies from the negligence of another,
however, may not recover damages for the emotional distress the owner suffers
as a result of the negligence….Nor may such an owner recover damages for the
loss of the companionship of the pet caused by the negligence.”

‘Family Heirloom’

She went on to recite Pomerantz’s argument before Jones that
the loss of Bitty should be treated the same as the loss of  “a family
heirloom,” and commented:

“Since the value of a family heirloom often is largely, if
not exclusively, sentimental…, it seems to us this was an offer to put before
the jury inadmissible evidence of the strong emotional attachment Mowery had to
Bitty as a companion.  The trial court correctly ruled, in granting the
Clinic’s motion in limine No. 1, that a pet owner may not recover from the
party that negligently caused the pet’s death damages for emotional distress or
loss of companionship….Implicitly recognizing this legal limitation, Mowery
concedes in her reply brief that she does not seek such damages for Bitty’s
death.

 




Depicted above is Bitty who, the
owner acknowledged in a lawsuit over the dog’s death through negligence, had
no fair market value but did, she asserted, have a unique and considerable
value to her.

 

Mowery’s reply brief says:

“…Respondent alleges without any basis that Ms. Mowery seeks
damages for emotional distress or loss of companionship. This is not fair
because she has expressly not sought these items of damages.

“Further, the response brief implies that emotional distress
damages are somehow inextricable from actual value damages. This is not the
case, and the trial court easily may bar evidence of emotional distress to
avoid any juror confusion.”

The case is Mowery
v. El Centro Animal Clinic
,
D082522.

 

Copyright
2024, Metropolitan News Company



Source link

Dog Food topper - Getquelle365
Tags: C.ACalldamagesDeathdogsruleSpurns
Tweet8Share13Share3Share
Previous Post

9 Fun Facts You Didn’t Know About Dobermans

Next Post

Dog survived vicious mountain lion attack on the road to recovery

Doggone Well Staff

Next Post
Dog survived vicious mountain lion attack on the road to recovery

Dog survived vicious mountain lion attack on the road to recovery

Youtube Channel

Currently Playing

Jealous Dog Want Attention Compilation NEW

Jealous Dog Want Attention Compilation NEW

00:06:28

Best Of Funny Guilty Dog Compilation 2014

00:05:32

Best Dog Birthday Surprise: DIY Ball Pit for Maymo

00:01:39

How a little microchip changed this dog's life!!! Please share this important video. #dog

00:05:48

Follow Our Page

Popular Post

    Follow Us

    Category

    • CBD
    • EXERCISES
    • Home
    • NEW POSTS
    • PET NEWS
    • PET TRAVEL
    • PETS
    • PRODUCTS
    • TRAINING FOR BEGINNERS
    • TRENDING

    Tag Cloud

    Adoption Animal Animals Attack breeds Care Cat Cats County Day Death dog Dog as Pet Dog Owner dogs Family Fire food health Home house Humane Life Local Love Man Meet news Owners Park people Pets Police Puppy Rescue Safe Shelter Society Stray Tips Top Vet Ways Week Woman

    Recent News

    Fitzgerald warns of rabies in Labrador after dog tests positive post fox encounter in Hopedale

    Fitzgerald warns of rabies in Labrador after dog tests positive post fox encounter in Hopedale

    July 11, 2025
    Pet of the Week: Meet Chubby, who loves everyone and doesn’t live up to his name

    Pet of the Week: Meet Chubby, who loves everyone and doesn’t live up to his name

    July 10, 2025
    • DMCA
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Disclaimer
    • Contact Us
    • Cookie Privacy Policy

    © 2022 Doggone Well - doggone well.

    No Result
    View All Result
    • Home
    • TRAINING FOR BEGINNERS
      • EXERCISES
      • PETS
    • CBD
    • PRODUCTS
    • TRENDING
    • PET NEWS
    • PET TRAVEL
    • Advertise Here

    © 2022 Doggone Well - doggone well.

    Welcome Back!

    Login to your account below

    Forgotten Password?

    Retrieve your password

    Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

    Log In