Woman Can't Sue for Distress in Dog's Death, Court Says
Morris Plains resident will not be compensated for emotional distress she says she endured after witnessing her dog killed. But should court have ruled otherwise?
Sometimes the law just doesn't seem to provide justice.
Last Tuesday's ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a case emanating from Morris Plains is a good example.
The justices found that a pet is just a possession and a dog owner is not entitled to payment for the emotional distress of watching (wo)man's best friend killed.
Five years ago, Joyce McDougall took her 9-year-old maltipoo Angel for a walk one June day. Maltipoos are small and fluffy with distinctive faces. Adorable. A much larger dog ran out, grabbed Angel by the neck, shook the dog and dropped her, killing the animal right before her owner's eyes.
McDougall sued the dog's owner and won $5,000 in compensatory damages for Angel's death. But the court did not grant an award for emotional distress. McDougall's lawyer had argued such an award was warranted because New Jersey courts allow for such claims when a person suffers severe emotional distress after witnessing the death of a loved one.
But only a human.
The court had set the precedent for such an award in a prior case, ruling 32 years ago that a person could sue for emotional distress in certain circumstances when they see a relative die and suffer as a result. But the court's decision last week made a distinction between humans and pets, putting the latter into the same category as inanimate objects.
It's a tough call.
Pets are animals (except for those of the rock variety). They are living, breathing creatures that can kiss and snuggle and, it certainly seems, give love.
On the other hand, they are like objects. People buy them, or even get them for free. They can't carry on a conversation—not really. They have no earning power—those few who do work need human trainers.
Many humans do, though, rely on their pets, need them, love them. When everything is going wrong and the world is against you, man's best friend will always be there, with a wildly wagging tail, a series of wet licks and a warm cuddle.
For someone who lives alone, as McDougall did, a dog can be a best friend. A single person may spend more time with a pet than with children who have moved away, well-meaning neighbors, co-workers and friends.
It's more than just the dog being there for you, but being there for the pet; providing all the care—feeding, cleaning, walking. It creates a feeling of a reciprocal relationship, helping and providing for one another.
The loss of a pet by natural causes is devastating. There is no doubt that watching your best friend, even if he is just an animal, be killed would be traumatic, nightmare-evoking, emotionally distressing.
So shouldn't a person be able to receive compensation for that distress?
"We do not doubt that plaintiff was attached to her dog and that she had strong emotional ties to it," the justices wrote. "Although we recognize that many people form close bonds with their pets, we conclude that those bonds do not rise to the level of a close familial relationship or intimate, marital-like bond."
McDougall already got more compensation than she would have under normal circumstances, according to the court. She spent $200 in 1997 for Angel when she was a puppy, and estimated a new pup would cost about $1,400. The lower court awarded her $5,000 in compensatory damages because the dog was well-trained.
Neither state law, nor legal precedent, allows for the awarding of damages for emotional distress due to the loss of a pet, which is considered property, according to the the court. The court acknowledged that pets are more special property than inanimate objects, but a person cannot even sue for emotion damages when witnessing just anyone being killed, it has to be a very special loved one—a spouse or fiancee or a child.
"The bond shared between humans and animals is often an emotional and enduring one," the justices agreed. It's just not enough to overwrite state law.
McDougall had urged the court to consider pets as more special than just that of an object. Five other states have, in law or court action. New Jersey's Supreme Court declined to do so, though its decision intimated that the Legislature could if it rewrote the laws concerning wrongful death.
That would bring other repercussions—more lawsuits, more payouts. And is witnessing the death of a beloved pet really more traumatic than seeing a co-worker, neighbor or student killed? It would make for lively debate in Trenton.
dave carver
8:24 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
my dog dies because your dog killed him/her, i don't need $$. I just need you to suffer the same loss I suffered. My dog dies, you dog dies.
C. Dorman
8:37 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
So kill another innocent creature because of your suffering? Wow, that makes sense.
dave carver
8:55 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
why do you think a killer dog is an innocent creature? what sense does that make?
JRyyan
6:39 am on Monday, August 6, 2012
Only in NJ, if you don't use a safety harness and buckle your dog up in the car it's a $250.00 fine. Much more then if a person doesn't use his/her seat belt. But if your dog is torn to shreds right in front of your eyes you can't sue for emotional distress.
PJ_Wolf
7:00 am on Monday, August 6, 2012
The pet buckle law is not intended to save your pet from harm, but rather the human occupants in a vehicle since any loose object becomes a potentially harmful projectile in an accident.
Curt Carnes
7:40 am on Monday, August 6, 2012
The Pet Buckle Law is not intended to save anything, human or animal. Clearly, It is intended to raise money for a totally out of control government who relentlessly stuffs its face with more and more money it takes from us the citizens!
This is nothing more than just another hidden tax increase, thrust on us by a Governor, and State Government, that wants you to believe they are reducing your taxes!
Open your eyes people! The government is not your friend! The Government can gives it citizens NOTHING it first doesn't have to TAKE from another citizen first!
Mark B
10:33 am on Monday, August 6, 2012
I guess Curt uses no government services whatsoever... LMAO....
Mike
8:27 am on Monday, August 6, 2012
I just want to know if the "killer" dog is doing time for his crime?!
Tara H.
8:56 am on Monday, August 6, 2012
Death to the other dog is not the answer, just an incredibly ignorant reponse. I have owned dogs and have worked in the animal field my whole life. They are my "kids"- they come to work, sleep in bed, and I value them just as much as my own family. However- they are still a dog, so they will react on animal instinct. And that is something that should not be forgotten. If my dog was killed like this poor woman's dog was, I could not blame the dog but instead the owner who allowed it to get away, be off leash of whatever the situation was.
And as far as the pet seatbelt law just being a way to " make money" well I completely disagree. Working in the veterinary industry, I have seen many dogs killed in car accidents and worse yet, dogs who escape a car only to be hit by a car on the road or highway, or if they do survive are then picked up and later euthanized because their owners are unable to be located. I think it forces pet owners to be responsible.
John
12:04 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Tara: You are spot on! It was total instinct on "Killer's" part. Joyce was compensated for her loss: people have CHILDREN who die and receive less. More money won't bring "Angel" back. It's been five years. Time for money-grubbing Joyce to move on.
As far as the Pet Leash Law, I have seen people driving with the dog's paws on the steering wheel! Not to mention that dogs become little missles in a sudden stop. Good Law.
maria
9:29 am on Monday, August 6, 2012
Was the dog that attacked Angel put down? NJ laws and courts are not as fair as what we expect them to be. When a new and different circumstance occurs, and there is no legal precedence that fits the situation at hand, a new ruling should supersede.
My heart goes out to you Joyce.
Nichole L
10:07 am on Monday, August 6, 2012
I'm sorry, but this ruling is right. A dog is a dog, not a child. Most people, if they lose a pet will go out and get another. You would not do that with a child! While I do not doubt that the owner grieved over her dog, there is absolutely NO WAY that it is even remotely comparable to the loss of a child or even any human. If the court had awarded her money it could have set a dangerous precedent.
Louise
1:31 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Nichole L, I completely agree! A dog is a dog. A sad thing that happened, but still, the courts did the right thing here!
cv
3:36 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
If this went the other way it would have opened a can of worms for every swinging idiot to sue when fluffy got a bug bite. Or better yet the neighboors dog gave a dirty look. I have 3 dogs as Nichole said they are dogs not people.
Unless the offending dog has done this a number of times it does not deserve to be put down and the owner dosent deserve to lose their house.People should get a grip and stop painting their dogs nails and dressing them like babies and pushing them in strollers.
Teena Roth
6:03 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
If your pet is killed, I feel you are entitled to something for your grief. A pet is part of the family. Enough said.
cv
7:38 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
She got 5k
AAM
7:53 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
She did get some thing she got $3600 more than it costs to physically replace the dog.
Awards for pain and suffering. No amount of money can compensate for the loss of a love one.
Please tell me how a monetary award of let's say $10,000 (because clearly $3600 didn't ) can assuage this woman's grief? If it actually can then we can say she is just a greedy self serving person who is trying to make money off a tragedy.
Diane Jones
3:33 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
If a killer dog attacked her dog, it could attack humans also. Pets having feelings, Pets can think and act accordingly not as advanced as an adult does. Anyone who has a Pet, knows this and will protect their pet as a human. I have had pets all my life and would not trade them for many humans I do know. Most of my friends feel the same way also. It is a living being, with a mind, a heart, all the same organs as we have. You can buy a baby too if you want to. Adopting after a surrugate mother delivers. That's buying a human being.
cv
3:48 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
my father in law has Akitas they are known to be very dog aggressive but have never been that way to humans. One of my dogs hates other dogs but go figure she loves the 2 she lives with. I will tell you my westie is aggressive to large dogs and on many occasions she has started fights with big dogs.
GarageRock
6:00 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Most all pet owners are as emotionally attached to their pets as others are to their children. When their pets die, they go through the same emotional distress and grief as if it was a human relative. Why shouldn't pet owners be allowed the same form of compensation when the illegal actions of another cause their pet's demise? I know it's allowed in Florida, but I'm not sure what the other four states are. Guess the courts in five other states have much more sense than ours.
Dr. Luvstick
3:59 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
Valid point.
cv
6:07 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
We already live in a society with enough litigation.
GarageRock
8:39 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
So that means we shouldn't be able to sue people for their wrongdoings anymore?! Because we have "enough litigation"? Moron...
Sir
9:19 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Ease up GarbageRock
GarageRock
9:30 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Buy some intelligence, "Sir". Another moron hiding behind a computer...
Sir
9:37 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
GarbageMan - you are trash.
GarageRock
9:48 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
So what is your argument, "Sir"? Do you have an opinion, or are you just attacking people, like an imbecile?!