Burgess v. Shampooch Pet Industries, Inc.
35 Kan. App. 2d 458, 131 P.3d 1248, 2006 Kan. App. LEXIS 332 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an injured pet with no discernible market value is restored to its previous health, the measure of damages may include the reasonable and customary cost of necessary veterinary care and is not capped by the animal's market value.
Facts:
- On April 8, 2004, a veterinarian examined Sarah Burgess's 13-year-old Yorkshire terrier, Murphy, and determined the dog was in good health.
- On April 10, 2004, Burgess took Murphy to Shampooch Pet Industries, Inc. for grooming services.
- After retrieving Murphy from Shampooch, Burgess noticed the dog was limping and acting strangely.
- Burgess immediately returned to Shampooch, where a representative denied any responsibility for Murphy's injury.
- The following day, Burgess sought emergency veterinary treatment for Murphy.
- On April 13, 2004, Murphy underwent surgery to repair a dislocated hip, and Burgess incurred veterinary bills totaling $1,308.89.
- Following the surgery and treatment, Murphy recovered and was back to her usual self.
Procedural Posture:
- Sarah Burgess filed a petition for damages against Shampooch Pet Industries, Inc. in Wyandotte County District Court (trial court), alleging negligence.
- Following a trial to the court, the district court entered a judgment in favor of Burgess for $1,308.89 plus court costs.
- Shampooch, as the appellant, filed a timely appeal of the district court's judgment to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
- Burgess is the appellee in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the proper measure of damages for an injury to a pet dog with no discernible market value, which is subsequently restored to its previous health, include the reasonable and customary costs of necessary veterinary care?
Opinions:
Majority - Buser, J.
Yes, the proper measure of damages for an injury to a pet with no discernible market value may include the reasonable and customary costs of necessary veterinary care. The court reasoned that the ultimate goal of damages is to make the injured party whole. While dogs are legally considered personal property, a 13-year-old household pet like Murphy has no discernible market value in the traditional sense, as there is no routine market for such animals. Limiting recovery to a nominal market value, such as the original purchase price, would not fairly compensate the owner for the actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred to treat the injury. Therefore, using the reasonable and necessary costs of veterinary care as the measure of damages is a practical, common-sense approach that aligns with the goal of making the plaintiff whole.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant development in animal law by moving away from a strict market-value approach for damages to pets. It recognizes the unique, non-economic value of companion animals to their owners. By allowing recovery of veterinary costs, the court provides a more equitable remedy that reflects the actual financial loss suffered by the owner and makes it more feasible to hold negligent parties accountable for injuring pets. This precedent strengthens the legal status of pets as more than mere chattel and influences how damages are calculated in similar cases involving personal property with high sentimental but low market value.
