Maryland

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . Delaware Considers Emotion-based Damages for Pets this Session

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
Sharon Coleman, CFA Legislative Legal Analyst

May 2022

Delaware is the second state this year to consider non-economic, or emotion-based, damages for pets. Maryland had considered expanding non-economic damages also. However, the author withdrew the Maryland bill, HB 1375, discussed in the March 2022 edition of What’s Hot. Also, the cross-filed Maryland SB 815 did not move out of committee, nor did the related HB 965 that would have increased the existing cap of $10,000 on compensatory damages to $25,000. As with the Maryland bill, Delaware’s SB 258 (cross-filed with SB 815) would have authorized emotion-based damages in cases for tortious injuries, including death, to a pet as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Senator Ernesto Lopez (R-SD 6) explains in the original bills synopsis that current law limits pet owners to the fair market value of the pet. Veterinary bills and other expenses related to treating the injuries arising from a tortious act are not recoverable. Senate Bill 258 would have authorized up to $15,000 for compensatory damages, and the same for emotion-based damages, for a combined maximum of $30,000. The bill does not limit punitive damages. After further consideration of policy issues, on May 11, 2022, the Senate Judiciary Committee  approved a substitute bill removing non-economic damages and the $15,000 cap on compensatory damages.

Of the three types of damages, compensatory damages are awarded to make the plaintiff whole for reasonable financial expenditures. The pet’s fair market value, veterinary expenses, equipment, and other special needs the pet may have short-term or long-term arising from the tortious act are examples of economic damages. In today’s economy, compensatory damages may sometimes rise above the original $15,000 cap. Punitive damages are designed to punish the tortfeasor and discourage them from committing future bad acts. Although paid to the plaintiff, these damages do not make the pet owner whole financially, nor are they designed to compensate them for any emotional distress. A court may award punitive damages when it deems an act egregious – as when a sanitation worker killed a miniature dachshund by throwing a just emptied garbage can at it, then laughs about the act (LaPorte v. Associated Independents, Inc., 163 So. 2d 267, 1 A.L.R.3d 992 (Fla. 1964)).

Non-economic damages, generally for emotional distress but sometimes related emotion-based claims such as pain and suffering may be awarded, if at all, to human plaintiffs who usually are physically injured. In some jurisdictions, these have been awarded to third parties, usually limited to either spouses or children and who may also be required to have been in the “zone of danger” themselves. These limited cases have inspired legislation to codify some acknowledgment of emotion-based damages based on the “pet member of the family” relationship along with economic or punitive damages for pet injuries and deaths. These two latter provisions are reasonable, especially with specific and modest caps. If emotion-based damages were allowed for tortious acts, breeders, and all pet owners, should expect costs of veterinary care, pet food, pet boarding, and other pet care items to increase in price as these costs are passed on to the consumer. Homeowners and automobile insurance premiums and other indirect expenses may also increase as claims would extend beyond service and care providers to anyone who kills or injures pets. Yet most pet owners will receive no value for the non-economic damages paid to just a few. In fact, in committee testimony on Delaware SB 258, the owner of the bill’s namesake “Izzy” the cat asked only for economic damages, in effect supporting the amendments that removed the cap from economic damages and deleted non-economic damages altogether to the advantage of pets and owners. To read further on this topic, go to “Harming Pets Through the Expansion of Emotion-Based Damages” on the CFA Legislative Group Blog.

EDITOR’S NOTE See the final result for SB 258, Substitute Bill SS1, signed into law on October 14, 2022.

In other news…

Governor Larry Hogan signed HB 22 into law making Maryland the second state to prohibit declawing a cat except when necessary for therapeutic purposes. New York was the first state to pass such a law.

New Hampshire Senate Bill 368 FN would increase fines for pet vendors to $1,000 for the first offense and up to $5,000 for subsequent offenses. The bill has passed both houses.

The Montgomery, Alabama City Council has adopted changes to the animal ordinances in Chapter 4 of its municipal code. The substitute ordinance that was adopted still includes special permits for breeders.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:

What’s Hot ………… Montgomery, AL Considers Breeder Licensing and Other Animal Code Changes

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . 2022 Maryland’s Noneconomic Damages Legislation and Missouri’s Pet Breeders Week Bill

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
Sharon Coleman, CFA Legislative Legal Analyst

March 2022

The Maryland House is considering House Bill 1375, a bill that would add provisions authorizing damages for mental anguish and pain and suffering, called emotion-based or noneconomic damages, for some pets. The net result of extending emotion-based damages to pets would increase the cost of breeding and pet ownership to everyone for the benefit of the few.  Compensatory damages for financial loss are already available in these cases. Courts in many states also have the discretion to award punitive damages to punish the wrongdoer for acts of gross negligence, intent, or malice. Current Maryland law allows compensatory damages up to $10,000 for the death or injury of a pet resulting from a tortious act (Maryland Code and Court Rules, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, §11-110). House Bill 1375, sponsored by Delegate Nicholaus Kipke (R), would amend the law to authorize noneconomic damages “for mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, comfort, and protection.” The proposed amendment also removes the $10,000 cap for acts involving gross negligence, intent, malice, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights violations. HB 1375 has been heard by the House Judiciary Committee. The bill’s Fiscal and Policy Note by the Maryland General Assembly Department of Legislative Services explains the statutory and case law leading to this bill.  

EDITOR’S NOTE, 3/19/222 HB 1375 “In the House – Withdrawn by Sponsor”

A companion bill, SB 815, sponsored by Senator Susan Lee (D), officially a “cross-filed” bill, has been heard but not yet voted by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. In the Maryland General Assembly, bills designated as cross-filed have improved chances of passage of at least one of the bills.

Unlike compensatory damages, emotion-based damages are generally limited to very close family members such as spouses, parents, and children. Authorizing noneconomic damages in pet cases involving torts elevates these pets above many human loved ones for whom lawmakers did not authorize such damages. Current law already elevates one class of pets above others by defining pets as domesticated animals and excluding livestock. Not all pet owners have cats and dogs; some animal owners keep livestock, snakes, or other animals as pets. That distinction will also apply to noneconomic damages if HB 1375 is enacted.

In addition to elevating the status of Kitty above many human loved ones, allowing emotion-based damages has far-reaching implications for all pet owners, especially breeders who have the additional costs involved in maintaining a breeding program and showing their cats. For veterinary medicine, if human medicine is any guide, there is no reason to believe that increased liability – and cost of care –  will improve the quality of care for our pets. The impact would also extend far beyond the veterinary field. Groomers, pet-sitters, food manufacturers, and other pet-related businesses would face greater liability, the cost of which would be passed on to the consumer. Homeowners and automotive insurance premiums may go up as the awards for pet-related claims increase. Yet, the vast majority of pet owners and their animals will receive no value for the increased cost of maintaining their pets. This topic is explored further in “Harming Pets Through the Expansion of Emotion-Based Damages,” available on the CFA Legislative Group Blog.

 A related bill, HB 965, sponsored by Delegate Kipke, would increase the §11-110 cap of $10,000 on compensatory damages to $25,000 if enacted. With the cost of veterinary medicine today, $25,000 may not be sufficient to cover the fair market value of the pet and the “reasonable and necessary cost of veterinary care” in all cases.

EDITOR’S NOTE: 4/15/2022 – The Maryland Legislature has adjourned, and none of the above bills were enacted. See the extensive 90 Day Report, Review of the 2022 Legislative Session, covering bills that were passed. Search PDF document for “animal” to fine the bills throughout the 470 page document.

In Other News

Missouri Senator Elaine Gannon (R) has sponsored SB 1200 to have the second week in March designated as Pet Breeders Week. Per the proposed §9.315, “Citizens of this state are encouraged to participate in appropriate events and activities in recognition of ethical and responsible pet breeders throughout our state for the joy they bring to pet owners.”

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts: Legislation – What’s Hot ….. Norway’s Unethical Breeding Case and the Revision of Animal Ordinances in Houston, Texas

Scroll to Top