A case before the courts in Brooklyn has raised an important legal issue: can you sue for emotional suffering due to an injury or death to your pet?
In Deblase v. Hill, a dog, Duke, was being walked by Nan Deblase, the mother of the dog’s owner. As they crossed the street, a driver ran a stop sign and ran over Duke, killing him. Nan did not suffer any physical injuries, but Nan and her son sued for the emotional distress resulting from the death of Duke. The driver made a motion to dismiss the claims for emotional distress.
Currently, New York law bars recovery for psychological injuries sustained in connection with the death or injury of animals. However, Nan and her son advocated “that a change in the law is necessary as this principle is antiquated and not in line with both common societal views and trends in the law.” They argued that dogs “are certainly much more than personal property, and as countless dog owners can attest, are akin to family.” The Case has not yet been decided, but below we discuss current scenarios where one can and cannot sue for emotional suffering due to a pet’s injury.
So, if a pet was injured in your presence and the injury was caused by someone else’s negligent actions, can you sue?
Yes, if you feared for your own safety, you can sue for psychological damages, even if you have no physical injuries. However, you must prove that the Defendant’s negligent actions unreasonably endangered your physical safety or caused you to fear for your safety. The emotional disturbance suffered must be serious and provable.
In Deblase v. Hill, the driver had a duty to drive safely. The driver’s failure to do so constituted negligence. Accordingly, Nan DeBlase has a viable claim for emotional distress arising out of fear for her own safety. (Surprisingly, in Deblase v. Hill, Nan Deblase did not claim she feared her own safety and therefore her claims are limited to the emotional distress of witnessing Duke die).
So, can Nan recover damages for the emotional distress of seeing Duke die?
The answer is likely no. It is well established that a pet owner in New York cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligent injuring or killing of a pet. Such is the case even if the pet owner was present and in the zone of danger when the pet was injured. A pet is not an “immediate family member” under the law, and thus no recovery can be had for the emotional distress of seeing a pet seriously injured or even killed.
However, if (1) an immediate family member is seriously injured or killed; (2) you witness the injury or death; (3) another’s negligent actions contributed to the injury or death, and; (4) you were in the zone of danger, you can recover damages.
In Deblase v. Hill, Nan was in the zone of danger. However, Nan cannot recover damages for the emotional distress of seeing Duke the dog killed, because New York law does not consider dogs to be immediate family members.
Can Duke’s owner recover for the emotional distress of the incident?
No. Under current New York law, the owner of Duke the dog, Nan Deblase’s son, cannot recover for the emotional distress of Duke death. Duke’s owner was not present for the injury, and therefore could not have feared for his own safety. Thus, he has no claims for emotional losses.
In conclusion.
New York law currently considers pets to be property. Accordingly, there is no recovery for emotional damages due to the negligent injury or death of a pet. However, one who was present when the pet was injured or killed can recover for their own emotional distress if they feared for their own safety. Though not otherwise discussed here, the dog owner can recover for economic losses associated with the death of Duke.