No Wrongful Death Claim For Pet Cat

The Idaho Supreme Court in the main affirmed a Court of Appeals decision in a lawsuit over the death of a pet cat

This case addresses the types of damages available to bereaved pet owners for the death of a family pet and the treatment of its body post-mortem. The Schrivers seek to recover damages for the emotional distress they endured after their cat died following a veterinary procedure and the body was subjected to a necropsy, allegedly performed against their will. They assert that pet ownership creates a strong emotional bond between human and pet, which makes their grief foreseeable, and therefore, compensable. They also assert that a pet’s value to its owner is relational in nature, which they argue gives rise to the recovery of non-economic damages for the loss of companionship when that pet dies as a result of alleged malpractice. In essence, the Schrivers ask this Court to recognize a wrongful death action for the loss of their cat. We decline to do so.

While the loss of a beloved pet undoubtedly brings much sadness, our decision today reflects the bedrock legal principle that pets, like livestock, are personal property. Our decision upholds the long-standing rule of law that when a pet has no fair market value at the time of its death, the proper measure of damages is the pet’s actual, economic value to the owner, including the monetary value assigned to the pet’s pedigree, habits, traits, and reputation. The pet’s valuation does not, however, include the sentimental value attached to the pet’s companionship.

We also affirm the Idaho Court of Appeals’ longstanding conclusion that emotional distress damages are not available for the destruction of an animal as part of a claim for trespass to chattels or conversion. Instead, a claim for emotional distress damages for loss of personal property must be pursued as part of a negligent infliction of emotional distress or intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress claim. In this case, a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not available to the Schrivers because that type of claim must start with a duty of care to avoid emotional harm to others. We, along with a majority of jurisdictions across the nation, decline to recognize such a duty on the part of a veterinarian. However, an action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress rests not on the establishment of a duty of care but on the extreme and outrageous nature of the conduct at issue. Whether the necropsy at issue in this case rises to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to award recovery for emotional distress is a question of fact best left to the jury. Accordingly, and for the reasons expressed more fully below, we affirm the district court’s decision in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Gypsy had been adopted at eleven weeks and was brought into the veterinarian for what her owner thought might be an upper respiratory infection. An IV catheter was put in a vein

Approximately two hours after the attempted cystocentesis, Dr. Raptosh checked on Gypsy and noticed that she had labored breathing; Gypsy’s heart then stopped. Dr. Raptosh attempted CPR, but Gypsy passed away.

The owner’s reaction

Following Gypsy’s death, Andrea became depressed and suffered from suicidal ideation. She also suffered from migraines, sleep disturbances, and tachycardia. She sought medical treatment for her emotional distress and was ultimately placed on medications.

The precedent of the pet donkey shot on purpose

Importantly, the Idaho Court of Appeals in Gill permitted the recovery of emotional distress damages for the death of the pet donkey because the alleged conduct of the defendant in that case could be considered “extreme and outrageous,” the critical element necessary for a claim of intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 1138-39, 695 P.2d at 1277-78. In each case cited by the Schrivers in which a court permitted recovery of emotional distress damages for claims of conversion or trespass to chattels that involved a pet, there is an element of outrageousness with respect to the alleged conduct of the defendants.

(Mike Frisch)