THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
At The Law Offices of Peter D. Isakoff, we are avid pet-lovers. Attorney Peter Isakoff has always had a love of animals, and is the owner of two very sweet and spoiled rescue pups, Rosie and Lucy. In his law practice, Attorney Isakoff has taken on a wide array of cases involving pets. Attorney Isakoff has previously handled cases involving:
- Veterinary Malpractice
- Landlord/Tenant issues involving pets
- Legal issues involving Service Animals and Emotional Support Animals
- Championship dog breeding
- Pet “custody” between separating couples
- Taking care of pets in estate planning
- Animal Control Enforcement Actions against pets
- Animal attacks to pets
- Pet attacks to people
As any pet owner knows, pets are priceless. But how does that play out in the legal system? There are many times in cases involving animals where it becomes necessary to “put a pricetag” on the life of a pet. This is a daunting task for any pet lover.
On February 12, 2012, the N.C. Court of Appeals took this issue head-on in the case of Shera v. N.C. State University Teaching Hospital, 723 S.E.2d 352 (2012).
The facts of the Shera case tug at the heartstrings of any animal-lover. The Shera family purchased their dog “Laci” as a five-week-old Jack Russel Terrier puppy. Laci immediately became a part of the family. At about 8 or 9 years old, Laci developed liver cancer. The Shera family took Laci took a specialty veterinarian who removed the cancerous tumor. The Shera family then had Laci get follow-up liver cancer treatment at N.C. State Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Raleigh. Her cancer went into remission.
Four years later, when Laci was about 12 or 13 years old, Laci began showing signs of multi-systemic organ disease. The Shera family took her back to N.C. State Veterinary Teaching Hospital for care, where she was prescribed a feeding tube.
Staff at the hospital put the feeding tube in incorrectly, causing Laci to go into cardiac arrest and die. N.C. State University Teaching Hospital didn’t dispute that its staff’s error caused Laci’s death. The central issue of the case was how much N.C. State University Teaching Hospital had to pay the Shera family for its staff’s error. In essence, how much was Laci’s life worth?
At trial, the Shera family put on strong evidence “representing the intrinsic value of Laci,” by providing a thorough and heart-felt portrayal of the family’s emotional bond with their pet dog. They described at length for the Court the “intrinsic value of the unique-human animal bond between Laci and [plaintiffs]. Borne from the time, labor, attention, and care given to Laci by [plaintiffs].” They even testified how Laci had helped in Mr. Shera’s heart treatment therapy by being his “best friend.”
Through the lawsuit, the Shera family sought “economic damages,” including reimbursement for amounts paid for veterinary services, mileage, and other out-of-pocket expenses for Laci’s treatment and cremation. They also sought “noneconomic damages, including emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life.”
At trial, the Industrial Commission (the proper venue for this type of claim) awarded the Shera family $3,105.72, comprised of: 1) $2,755.72 reimbursement of amounts paid for Laci’s end-of-life treatment; $350 as the fair market value to replace a Jack Russel Terrier. It did not award any amount for noneconomic damages, emotional distress, or the family’s loss of enjoyment of life. The Shera family appealed to the N.C. Court of Appeals on the sole issue of “noneconomic damages” for their emotional distress.
On appeal, the N.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission’s decision and award. The Court of Appeals provided a thorough analysis and response to the Shera family’s argument for “noneconomic damages.” It noted that in North Carolina, it’s well-established law that pets and other domesticated animals are generally considered personal property. The general rule in North Carolina is that the measure of property damage is the difference between the market value of the property before and after the injury. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Industrial Commission reached the appropriate valuation by awarding the Shera family $350 as the fair market replacement cost for a pet Jack Russel Terrier, in addition to their vet bills.
In support, the Court of Appeals cited N.C.P.I. 810.66 (North Carolina’s pattern jury instructions), which instructs jurors not to consider “any fanciful, irrational or purely emotional value” that the property may have. The Court of Appeals also looked at case law the Shera family brought up involving wrongful death of children, and concluded that while parents could possibly recover emotional damages for the death of their children, that was a unique situation not extended to pets.
So North Carolina law is pretty clear on this point. North Carolina courts generally will not award any damages for emotional distress or other “non-economic” damages in cases involving injury or loss to pets.
But at The Law Offices of Peter D. Isakoff, we believe every pet is priceless.
If you need assistance with a legal issue involving a pet or other animal, feel free to contact The Law Offices Of Peter D. Isakoff at peter@isakofflawoffices.com or 757-478-3144.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. This website contains links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; the ABA and its members do not recommend or endorse the contents of the third-party sites.
ความคิดเห็น