Harming Pets

Through the Expansion of Emotion-Based Damages

- Kelly Crouch CFA Legislative Information Liaison

People adore their pets, be they furry, fishy, or flying. We are devastated when our pets are hurt, or their lives are lost. When that harm is caused by another’s negligence, some pet owners seek damages for their emotional loss in addition to any economic loss, not understanding that emotion-based damages harms pets in general. In most states, non-economic damages are not allowed in negligence cases for pets or humans. Some groups, like the Animal Legal Defense Fund, seek to overturn existing law, arguing that the human-animal bond has increased so much over the last three decades that the liability for negligence by veterinarians, groomers, pet-sitters and the next-door neighbor should expand to include emotion-based damages. According to Phil Goldberg, this claim of a sudden change in the human-animal bond is a myth. (Goldberg, p. 65) Pets have held a special place in our hearts since they invaded our hearths. The more recent inclusion of the terms “fur kids” or “pet parents” in our vocabulary does not describe some new level of emotional relationships we have with our pets despite the marketing hype around such terminology. Some people may argue that we spend more on pets than ever before and that expenditure is a measurement of love. While American pet owners are expected to spend almost $70 billion dollars on their pets in 2017 (Pet Industry Market Size & Ownership Statistics), this sum is a measurement of cost which in cludes both necessities and indulgences. It is not a measurement of an exponential increase of love for our pets. Accepting the myth that pets are “functional children” as truth to justify expanding damages in negligence-based torts would overturn centuries of well-reasoned American jurisprudence. It would also have a far-reaching, foreseeable, harmful impact on our pets beyond the courtroom.

Understanding the Role of Damages in Torts