Ammon v. Welty
113 S.W.3d 185, 2002 Ky. App. LEXIS 1400, 2002 WL 1488672 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Kentucky law, dogs are considered personal property, and damages for their wrongful destruction are limited to the animal's market value. Damages for emotional distress or loss of companionship are not recoverable for the loss of personal property, including a pet.
Facts:
- In 1992, the Ammon family adopted a stray dog named Hair Bear.
- Hair Bear was unlicensed and frequently roamed the area unrestrained, leading to complaints from a neighbor, Georgia Nuss.
- Although the Ammons sometimes tethered Hair Bear, the limited restraint was not consistently applied.
- On May 26, 1993, Nuss delivered Hair Bear to the residence of the Trimble County Dog Warden, Robert Brewer.
- Hair Bear was wearing a collar but had no identification tag linking him to his owners.
- Before the expiration of the statutory seven-day holding period, Brewer shot and killed Hair Bear.
- It was undisputed that Hair Bear, as a mixed-breed companion animal, had no discernible market value.
Procedural Posture:
- The Ammons filed a lawsuit against Trimble County Dog Warden Robert Brewer and the Trimble County Fiscal Court members in Trimble Circuit Court (the trial court).
- The complaint alleged wrongful destruction of property and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress.
- The defendants argued they were entitled to sovereign immunity.
- The Trimble Circuit Court dismissed the Ammons' action.
- The Ammons (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Kentucky law, may a pet owner recover damages for emotional distress or loss of companionship for the wrongful killing of their dog, which is considered personal property?
Opinions:
Majority - Emberton, Chief Judge
No. A pet owner may not recover damages for emotional distress or loss of companionship for the wrongful killing of their dog because a dog is legally classified as personal property. The court reasoned that while the law recognizes the strong bond between humans and dogs, it treats dogs as 'qualified property.' Damages for the destruction of personal property are limited to its market value, and claims for loss of companionship (consortium) are restricted to human familial relationships. The loss of love and affection from the destruction of property is not a compensable injury. Furthermore, the claim for outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress fails because the dog warden's conduct, while wrongful, was not directed at the Ammons, nor was it so extreme and outrageous as to be 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' There was no evidence Brewer intended to inflict emotional harm on the family. Finally, the court deferred to the legislature on the issue of whether shooting is a humane method of euthanasia, concluding that it is a matter of public policy beyond the court's purview.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law classification of pets as personal property, or chattel, limiting recoverable damages to their economic value. The court explicitly declines to extend tort remedies like loss of consortium or negligent infliction of emotional distress to the human-animal relationship, maintaining a firm legal distinction between pets and human family members. The ruling signals that any change to the legal status of animals or the types of damages available for their loss must come from the legislature, not the judiciary. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for pet owners in Kentucky to recover non-economic damages for the wrongful death of a companion animal.
