McMahon v. Craig
176 Cal. App. 4th 1502 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A veterinarian's alleged negligence and subsequent fraudulent cover-up concerning a pet's death do not establish a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress against the pet owner, nor does California Civil Code section 3355's 'peculiar value' clause allow for loss of companionship damages based on sentimental attachment.
Facts:
- Gail M. McMahon owned Tootsie, a purebred Maltese show dog who was the last of her bloodline and possessed exceptional qualities, with whom McMahon shared a strong bond.
- When Tootsie was five years old, she developed severe laryngeal paralysis, and McMahon sought treatment from Diane Craig, D.V.M., a surgeon at a veterinary hospital.
- During presurgical consultations, McMahon informed Craig of her strong bond with Tootsie and her willingness to spare no cost for the dog's care, leading defendants to understand Tootsie's peculiar value to McMahon and that McMahon would be emotionally devastated if Tootsie died.
- Craig recommended and performed corrective surgery, advising McMahon that aspiration pneumonia was the biggest post-surgery concern and that all food and water would be withheld from Tootsie for about 24 hours.
- Within two hours of surgery, a technician, under Craig's instruction, gave Tootsie water mixed with baby food, which Tootsie immediately aspirated into her lungs.
- The next day, Craig falsely informed McMahon by telephone that Tootsie had only been given water and reassured her that the resulting aspiration pneumonia was not a major setback, failing to disclose the food mixture or the life-threatening nature of the pneumonia.
- Contrary to promises of close monitoring and appropriate care, Tootsie was placed in a cage and left unmonitored, without necessary supportive care, and died about midnight the day after surgery, her death discovered accidentally.
- In the days following Tootsie's death, Craig denied in writing that Tootsie ingested any food and initially withheld relevant veterinary records, later altering the records after McMahon obtained the omitted documents from a third party.
Procedural Posture:
- Gail M. McMahon sued defendants Diane Craig, D.V.M., Veterinary Surgical Specialists, Inc., and Advanced Veterinary Specialty Group, LLC, in a California trial court.
- The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to McMahon's intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action.
- The trial court granted defendants' motion to strike portions of McMahon's complaint seeking damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship.
- McMahon filed a first amended complaint, restating the same causes of action.
- The trial court again sustained, without leave to amend, defendants' demurrer to McMahon’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
- The trial court also granted, without leave to amend, defendants' motion to strike McMahon’s damage claims for loss of companionship and emotional distress.
- After discovery, McMahon stipulated to judgment against her to expedite an appeal of the trial court's rulings.
- McMahon appealed the judgment to the California Court of 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:
1. Does a veterinarian's alleged negligent care and subsequent fraudulent cover-up concerning a pet's death constitute extreme and outrageous conduct directed at the owner, sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress? 2. Can a pet owner be considered a 'direct victim' or 'bystander' of veterinary malpractice, thereby allowing recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress? 3. Does California Civil Code section 3355's 'peculiar value' clause permit a pet owner to recover damages for loss of companionship based on their emotional attachment to a deceased pet?
Opinions:
Majority - Aronson, J.
No, defendants' alleged conduct does not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court found that the alleged malpractice and subsequent cover-up were neither directed at McMahon nor occurred in her presence, which are essential elements for the tort. Citing Christensen v. Superior Court and Cochran v. Cochran, the court reiterated that conduct must be "so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community." The court also distinguished this case from Katsaris v. Cook, noting that McMahon was informed of Tootsie's death immediately, so the alleged cover-up did not greatly increase her distress beyond the initial loss. No, a pet owner cannot recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress under either "bystander" or "direct victim" theories for veterinary malpractice. McMahon was not present at the scene when the injury-producing event occurred, failing the "bystander" test from Burgess v. Superior Court. As for the "direct victim" theory, the court clarified that a veterinarian's medical care is directed solely to the pet, not the owner, and thus does not directly harm the owner in a manner creating liability for emotional distress. The court distinguished the veterinarian-pet owner relationship from physician-patient relationships in cases like Burgess (mother and child), Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (misdiagnosis leading to marital breakup), and Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (therapist treating both mothers and children), where the duty was owed directly to the plaintiff as a patient or where the plaintiff's health was inextricably intertwined with the care. The contract for veterinary services, even with knowledge of the owner's bond, did not make the owner's emotional well-being the express object of the contract under Erlich v. Menezes. Furthermore, policy considerations, including the potential for increased litigation, the difficulty of defining liability limits for companion animals, and the fact that California law does not allow parents to recover for loss of affection and society of their children, weighed against extending such a duty. No, McMahon cannot recover damages for loss of companionship based on her dog's peculiar value. Civil Code section 3355, which refers to "peculiar value," is interpreted to mean an item's unique economic or functional value, not sentimental or emotional attachment. The court referenced Roos v. Loeser (pedigree, reputation, show ability) and King v. Karpe (breeding value) as examples of how "peculiar value" has been previously applied to animals. It also cited the Restatement Second of Torts, section 911, which states that damages cannot be based on sentimental value and are not given for emotional distress caused merely by the loss of things. The court emphasized that because California law does not permit parents to recover for the loss of companionship of their children, it is constrained not to allow a pet owner to recover for the loss of a pet's companionship.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of recoverable damages for pet owners in California, firmly classifying pets as personal property for tort purposes and restricting emotional distress claims arising from veterinary malpractice. The decision highlights the court's reluctance to expand tort liability in areas where it perceives policy implications, such as increased litigation and the difficulty of setting reasonable limits on damages for emotional bonds with animals, especially when such damages are not allowed for human family members. This ruling provides clear guidance on the interpretation of "peculiar value" under Civil Code section 3355, solidifying that it pertains to economic rather than sentimental worth, and underscores the high bar for proving intentional infliction of emotional distress where the conduct is not directed at the plaintiff.
