Recovery of pain and suffering over the death of a pet
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 815
In the wake of the recent deaths of pets resulting from contaminated pet food, New Jersey is considering a law permitting pet owners to sue for recovery of their pain and suffering if their pet gets sick or dies from eating the affected food. This will undoubtedly rekindle the debate over the status of pets in the law. Should pets be considered "part of the family" such that their owners can recover for pain and suffering for the loss of their pets?
A few states say yes - within limits. For example, Tennessee allows pet owners to sue for up to $5,000. However, in most states, pets are considered property. Thus, if a pet dies as the result of someone else's negligence, the recovery is limited to the value of the pet as a piece of property, not as a member of the family, and frankly, Fido, the mutt you saved from the pound, isn't worth much on the open market. (Florida arguably has recognized an exception to the ban on pet owners' pain and suffering if the pet was injured or killed as a result of someone's malicious conduct toward the pet.)
The other side of the equation is valid as well: If pet owners are allowed to sue for their pain and suffering over the loss of a pet, won't that "open the floodgates" of litigation every time someone's goldfish or rabbit or canary dies? Perhaps, but before you write off the issue entirely, consider this: Several studies, which have gotten wide coverage on the news, have shown that exposure to dogs and other animals significantly increases the quality of life and improves the mental health of the elderly and the terminally ill. I imagine there are more than a few of the elderly who find that their pets bring them more joy than their grasping adult children and rowdy grandchildren. Pets are already protected from cruelty under the criminal laws of all 50 states. Some would argue that their owners should receive protection in the civil arena as well.