Kaufman v. Langhofer
223 Ariz. 249, 222 P.3d 272, 572 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 11 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Arizona law, pets are classified as personal property, and therefore, a pet owner cannot recover damages for emotional distress or loss of companionship resulting from the negligent injury or death of a pet.
Facts:
- David Kaufman purchased a scarlet macaw named Salty in late 1996.
- Salty was an intelligent, affectionate, and playful companion to Kaufman, accompanying him to work and participating in family holidays.
- On May 1, 2005, a bird breeder diagnosed Salty with a cloacal prolapse.
- Kaufman brought Salty to Dr. William Langhofer for treatment on May 5, 2005.
- Dr. Langhofer performed two operations on Salty, which cured the cloacal prolapse but left her with a uterine prolapse.
- Salty never fully recovered from the second operation, began to suffer respiratory distress, and died on June 21, 2005.
Procedural Posture:
- David Kaufman sued Dr. William Langhofer and Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic in a superior court (trial court) for claims including professional negligence, wrongful death, negligent misrepresentation, and damage to personal property, seeking various damages including emotional distress and loss of companionship.
- Dr. Langhofer moved to dismiss Kaufman's claims for emotional distress and loss of companionship damages.
- The superior court granted Dr. Langhofer's motion, dismissing Kaufman's emotional distress damage claims, concluding that "Arizona law does not provide for the types of ‘loss of relationship’ damages Plaintiff seeks."
- The superior court instructed the jury that Kaufman's damages were "limited to the diminished or lost value, if any, of his bird," specifically its fair market value.
- The jury allocated fault 30% to Dr. Langhofer and 70% to Kaufman and awarded Kaufman no damages.
- The superior court entered judgment consistent with the jury's verdict and denied Kaufman’s application for costs.
- Kaufman timely appealed the judgment to the Arizona 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:
Does Arizona law permit a pet owner to recover damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship due to a veterinarian's professional negligence causing the death of their pet?
Opinions:
Majority - Norris, Judge
No, Arizona law does not permit a pet owner to recover emotional distress or loss of companionship damages for the negligent injury or death of a pet. The court held that under existing Arizona law, pets are classified as personal property, and recovery for damage to personal property is generally limited to the property's fair market value. The court distinguished previous Arizona cases that allowed emotional distress damages in property loss cases (e.g., insurance bad faith, landlord-tenant issues, loss of pre-embryos) by noting that those cases involved a tortious act that directly harmed the plaintiff by affecting a personal interest, as opposed to merely an economic interest. Dr. Langhofer's negligence, while resulting in Salty's death, did not directly harm Kaufman in a manner that affected a personal right or interest in the same way. The court also declined to expand Arizona common law to allow such damages, reasoning that doing so would offer broader compensation for the loss of a pet than is currently available for the loss of close human friends, siblings, or non-nuclear family members under Arizona's negligent infliction of emotional distress or wrongful death statutes. This expansion, the court concluded, should be a legislative decision rather than a judicial one, citing similar reasoning from other jurisdictions.
Concurring - Sheldon H. Weisberg and Margaret H. Downie, Judges
No separate content provided in the case text.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the traditional common law classification of pets as personal property, severely limiting the types of damages recoverable for their negligent injury or death in Arizona. It establishes a clear precedent that emotional distress and loss of companionship damages are not available in such cases, distinguishing them from situations where property loss directly impacts a personal interest of the owner. The decision highlights the judiciary's reluctance to expand tort liability for non-economic damages beyond existing statutory and common law frameworks, especially when such an expansion would grant greater recovery for pets than for certain human relationships. Future cases involving veterinary malpractice or other negligent harm to pets will likely be confined to fair market value or "value to owner" damages, if properly preserved, absent legislative intervention.
