October 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

When our pets suffer due to the negligent, reckless, or intentional acts of others, it is natural to be angry and seek compensation for those harmful acts. Legislatures often limit that redress to reasonable economic losses – the animal’s fair market value and out-of-pocket expenses. Courts may also award punitive damages to punish the tortfeasor. However, for many years, some groups have sought to expand damages to include emotion-based damages. This year, courts in Idaho, California, and New York, along with the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York legislatures, have all considered this question. Why is awarding emotion-based (non-economic) damages a bad thing in these cases? 

The first part of the answer is easy. Every business defendant will try to recoup the costs of any award. Thus, when the tortfeasor is a business, the ultimate onus falls on all animal owners as the cost of the damages trickles down through increased prices of pet food and supplies, veterinary and other services, and indirect costs such as insurance. A tiny number of owners benefit, but every animal owner pays.

The second part of the answer relates to the purpose of damages in civil suits for accidental or intentional infliction of harm. Economic damage awards are intended to make the plaintiff financially whole. The cost of veterinary care related to the incident is an example of economic damage. Punitive damages are meant to discourage repeat offenses. Recompense for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and the loss of companionship is the role of emotion-based damages, but legislatures strictly limit who may seek such damages. Often, it is limited to the person injured. However, some states have narrowly expanded the class of plaintiffs who may seek non-economic damages, including parents, children, and those with a reasonable expectation of harm to themselves. Siblings, fiancés, and best friends need not apply. While we may consider our animals part of the family, raising their legal status to that of (or above) a human child does not make sense. Pets are already treated differently under the law than other types of personal property with anti-cruelty and minimum standards of care laws. Allowing such more damages brings us back to reason one – increased liability equals increased costs for all animal owners.

State laws specify when emotion-based damages may be awarded. Nonetheless, some advocates try to change the law through litigation as well as legislation. They ask the courts to expand the damages recoverable for injury to a pet, often without any clear limitation. For these reasons, the CFA Board of Directors allowed CFA to join the Animal Health Institute coalition on amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs opposing non-economic damages for animal injury cases in New York and California this year. For more information about the issue of non-economic damages, an article published previously in Cat Talk, “Harming Pets Through the Expansion of Emotion-Based Damages” is located on the CFA Legislative Group blog Resources page here.

You are our eyes and ears! Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org