The Ripple Effect of Expanding Pet-Related Liability in U.S. Courts

A recent New York court ruling has significant implications for veterinary practices and really any businesses in the pet care industry. The decision expands liability exposure in ways that could fundamentally change how businesses assess risk and carry insurance. Here's what happened and why it matters.   

Historically, legal precedence in cases where an animal is inadvertently injured or killed has resulted in monetary damages that cannot exceed the actual value of the animal plus any associated veterinary costs as a result ofthe action. This has included pets, livestock, and horses. However, in 2023, a pet owner’s mother was walking their family’s dachshund when she crossed the street at an intersection and a driver ran through the stop sign, making a left-hand turn into her and her dog’s path. The pedestrian was not hit; however, the dog was not so lucky and was killed by the car that ran the stop sign.  

The owner of the dog and his mother, who was walking the dog when it was killed, sued the driver in a New York court not only for the value of the dog but also for “emotional distress,” which is defined as emotional or psychological trauma that is the result of another’s actions, of which the monetary amount of relief granted by a judge or jury cannot be determined by a “fair market value” but instead can be set by the amount of distress inflicted on the victim in the judgment of the court.   Think of this as allowing for emotional distress, pain and suffering restitution to be made for injury or death to a pet. 

Most jurisdictions allow lawsuits to recover the fair market value of an animal, as well as possible related veterinary medical costs. Some of these types of cases may allow for an additional monetary award in the case of a Tennessee precedent for recovery of non-economic damages against another person who is responsible for the death of an animal that was deemed to be an intentional or negligent act. 

In many cases, a requirement for a judgment to award emotional distress damages requires that the person (usually the animal owner) be physically close to the animal that was injured or killed. This is also referred to as being in a “zone of danger,” which can be described as being close enough to the animal that it was reasonably possible that the person could have been injured or killed as well. Other such emotional distress awards by courts have occurred through acts of intention where a person has a definitive intent to injure or kill an animal.   

What makes the New York case unique is that the judge ruled that the owners of the dog were entitled to emotional distress damages even though the driver did not intentionally run the stop sign with the direct intent to harm the dog. Still, the driver was negligent by running the stop sign, even though there was no intent to injure anyone, however the owner’s mother was in the direct vicinity of the pet when he was killed which is referred to legally as a “zone of danger”.  More simply put, she witnessed the dog’s death in very close proximity. 

A reason that this ruling can be considered as precedent is that up until now, emotional distress awards were usually tied to the intent of the person causing the injury or death of an animal. In the recent New York case, the death or injury was the unintentional consequence of the driver’s action. This ruling could change how anyone in the business of animal care conducts business. This could affect any profession or industry that provides goods or professional services for pets.   

Veterinary care is potentially greatly affected by rulings such as this.  

Currently, pet owners can sue a veterinarian or any professional who provides services to animals in most states. The difference is that the proof is on the plaintiff (the person filing the lawsuit) to demonstrate that the care received was not performed at the “usual standard of care.” This means that a plaintiff must prove that a veterinarian or other animal professional provided substandard treatment or care if a lawsuit of this kind is judged in favor of a plaintiff. This usually involves the use of expert witnesses. This may be another veterinarian(s) that would testify that a reasonable standard of care was or was not followed.  

Most companion animal veterinarians currently carry malpractice insurance, as human physicians do. The difference is that in veterinary medicine, malpractice insurance is considerably less expensive, as it is usually limited to the value of animals treated by a veterinarian and applies only when negligence can be proven in court that the standard of veterinary care was not met. 

Veterinary care in the US has become more costly and harder to get than ever before. The boom in pet ownership has increased dramatically over the past several years, and many areas of the country remain underserved by veterinary care. Many veterinarians may choose to leave practice due to job dissatisfaction, feeling overworked, or the general stress of the medical profession. A 2024 American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA)study found that 30% of practicing veterinarians plan to leave their current practice. Of these leaving their practice, 50% plan to leave clinical practice completely. Of those leaving clinical practice completely, 90% will not return. These are eye-opening numbers. 

If courts start allowing unencumbered judgments for emotional distress and punitive damages for pets, it is likely to cause veterinary malpractice insurance to skyrocket or even become unattainable for many practicing clinical veterinarians. This would definitely make access to affordable pet health care even more challenging for pet owners than it is now. These unintended consequences of court judgements could harm the very thing they are trying to protect: the pet-human bond.  

Follow us on LinkedIn for the latest updates on all things happening here at BSM Partners.

About the Author

Dr. Bradley Quest, DVM, is the Principal Veterinarian at BSM Partners. He has practiced clinical veterinary medicine, developed and tested hundreds of pet food and health products, performs extensive animal health research, and helps navigate pet food ingredient approval for clients.