McDougall v. Lamm
211 N.J. 203, 2012 WL 3079207, 48 A.3d 312 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pet owner may not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress from observing the traumatic death of their companion animal. The bond with a pet does not rise to the level of the close, familial, or marital-like relationship required to support a bystander emotional distress claim under the Portee doctrine.
Facts:
- Joyce McDougall owned a nine-year-old 'maltipoo' dog named Angel, with whom she had a very close bond.
- After McDougall's husband and children moved out, she lived alone with Angel.
- On June 7, 2007, McDougall was walking Angel on a public street.
- A large dog belonging to defendant Chariot Lamm ran out of Lamm's house and approached them.
- Lamm's dog grabbed Angel by the neck, picked the small dog up, and shook it several times before dropping it.
- McDougall witnessed the entire attack, during which she screamed and tried to get help.
- Angel died as a result of the injuries sustained in the attack.
Procedural Posture:
- Joyce McDougall sued Chariot Lamm in a New Jersey trial court, alleging negligence for the loss of her dog and negligent infliction of emotional distress for witnessing the attack.
- The trial court granted Lamm's motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- After Lamm stipulated to liability for negligence, a bench trial was held on the issue of damages for the loss of the dog.
- The trial court awarded McDougall $5,000 in compensatory damages for the dog's value.
- McDougall, as appellant, appealed the dismissal of her emotional distress claim to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, declining to expand the cause of action for emotional distress.
- McDougall then appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress for a bystander who witnesses the death of another, as established in Portee v. Jaffee, extend to a pet owner who witnesses the traumatic death of their companion animal?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hoens
No. The cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress does not extend to a pet owner who witnesses the traumatic death of a companion animal because the relationship with a pet is not an intimate, familial one as required for bystander recovery. The court's reasoning is threefold. First, extending the Portee doctrine to pets would be inconsistent with the doctrine's essential foundation, which has been intentionally and narrowly limited to close human relationships like those between parents, children, spouses, and cohabiting fiancés. Second, creating such a cause of action would be ill-defined and amorphous, as it would be impossible to draw a clear line regarding which animals or owner-pet bonds would qualify, potentially elevating the loss of a pet above the loss of many humans for whom recovery is not permitted. Third, it would conflict with legislative policy, as the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act limits recovery for human death to pecuniary losses and does not permit emotional distress damages, meaning this new cause of action would grant pet owners rights superior to those of families of human victims.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the narrow application of bystander liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress in New Jersey, reaffirming that such claims are reserved exclusively for individuals who witness the death or serious injury of a person with whom they share an intimate, familial relationship. By declining to reclassify the human-pet bond as 'familial' for tort purposes, the court maintained the legal status of pets as a special category of personal property, for which non-economic damages like emotional distress are unavailable. The ruling signals that any major public policy shift to expand tort liability in this area is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary. This precedent effectively bars claims for emotional distress from witnessing an animal's death and channels recovery for pet owners toward pecuniary damages, such as the pet's intrinsic or replacement value and veterinary expenses.
