Carla Strickland v. Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen
397 S.W.3d 184, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 470, 2013 WL 1366033 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas common law, damages for the negligent killing of a pet are limited to the animal's economic value, measured by its fair market value or its special value based on usefulness and services. Non-economic damages, such as for an owner's loss of companionship or sentimental value, are not recoverable.
Facts:
- Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen owned a mixed-breed dog named Avery.
- In June 2009, Avery escaped from the Medlens' backyard and was taken to a Fort Worth animal shelter.
- Jeremy Medlen located Avery at the shelter but did not have enough money to pay the required fees to retrieve him.
- Shelter staff placed a 'hold for owner' tag on Avery's cage to alert employees that the Medlens were coming for him and to ensure he was not euthanized.
- Despite the tag, shelter worker Carla Strickland mistakenly placed Avery on the euthanasia list.
- Avery was subsequently euthanized by the shelter.
Procedural Posture:
- The Medlens sued Carla Strickland in a Texas trial court, seeking damages for the 'sentimental or intrinsic value' of their dog, Avery.
- Strickland filed a special exception, asserting such damages were not recoverable under Texas law.
- The trial court sustained the special exception and, after the Medlens amended their petition to re-allege 'intrinsic value' damages, dismissed the suit with prejudice.
- The Medlens, as appellants, appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding for the first time in Texas that a dog owner could recover damages for loss of companionship in the form of intrinsic or sentimental value.
- Strickland, as petitioner, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 Texas common law permit a pet owner to recover non-economic damages for loss of companionship resulting from the negligent destruction of their dog?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Willett
No. Texas common law does not permit a pet owner to recover non-economic damages for loss of companionship from the negligent destruction of their dog. The court reaffirms its 1891 precedent in Heiligmann v. Rose, which classifies pets as personal property for tort purposes, limiting recovery to economic value. The court reasoned that loss of companionship is a form of personal-injury damage akin to loss of consortium, which is narrowly restricted to specific human relationships (spouse, parent, child). Allowing such damages for pets would create a legal anomaly where owners could recover damages for a pet that are unavailable for the loss of many human relatives, like a sibling or best friend. The court also deferred to the legislature, stating that creating such a broad new cause of action, with its significant public policy implications for veterinarians, shelters, and insurance costs, is a task better suited for lawmakers than the judiciary.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the long-standing legal classification of pets as personal property in Texas tort law, halting a potential shift towards recognizing a unique legal status for companion animals. By refusing to extend the heirloom exception for sentimental damages to pets, the court reinforces a clear line between property and persons. The opinion emphasizes judicial restraint and deference to the legislature on issues with wide-reaching public policy ramifications, effectively closing the courthouse door to claims for emotional damages in pet-death cases unless the legislature chooses to act.
