Plotnik v. Meihaus
146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 585, 208 Cal. App. 4th 1590 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pet owner may recover damages for mental suffering caused by another's intentional act that injures or kills their animal under a cause of action for trespass to personal property.
Facts:
- David and Joyce Plotnik were neighbors with John Meihaus, Jr., and his family.
- Following a prior dispute, the parties signed a 2007 settlement agreement containing a mutual clause not to 'harass, vex or annoy' each other.
- After the settlement, John Meihaus, Jr. allegedly threw yard clippings into the Plotniks' yard, repeatedly made obscene gestures at them, and stared at Joyce Plotnik for a prolonged period at a community pool.
- On April 9, 2009, the Plotniks' 15-pound miniature pinscher, Romeo, ran into the Meihaus's yard through an open gate.
- David Plotnik heard the dog squeal and then saw Romeo roll down a slope, injured. He then saw John Meihaus, Jr. in the adjacent yard holding a baseball bat.
- Romeo suffered a severe leg injury requiring surgery.
- Later the same day, Meihaus's adult sons, Greg Meihaus and John Meihaus III, aggressively confronted David Plotnik, threatening to assault him and kill his dog.
Procedural Posture:
- David and Joyce Plotnik (plaintiffs) sued John Meihaus, Jr., Greg Meihaus, and John Meihaus III (defendants) in the superior court (trial court).
- A jury returned special verdicts in favor of the Plotniks on multiple causes of action, including breach of contract, assault, and trespass to personal property for the injury to their dog.
- The jury awarded David Plotnik a total of $175,600 and Joyce Plotnik a total of $255,209.53 against the defendants.
- Defendants moved for a new trial, arguing the damages were excessive.
- The trial court conditionally granted the motion, prompting plaintiffs to accept a remittitur that reduced the awards to $146,600 for David Plotnik and $205,209.53 for Joyce Plotnik.
- The trial court also awarded plaintiffs $93,780 in attorney fees against John Meihaus, Jr.
- Defendants (as appellants) appealed the amended judgment to the California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
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 California law permit a pet owner to recover damages for emotional distress under a theory of trespass to personal property when their pet is intentionally injured by another person?
Opinions:
Majority - Rylaarsdam, Acting P. J.
Yes. California law permits a pet owner to recover damages for emotional distress resulting from an intentional act of cruelty to their pet, under a cause of action for trespass to personal property. The court reasoned that while dogs are legally considered personal property, the law recognizes the profound emotional attachment between humans and their pets, distinguishing them from inanimate objects. The court distinguished this case from negligence claims, where emotional distress damages for harm to a pet are typically not allowed. Instead, it analogized to other intentional torts like conversion and trespass to land, where emotional distress damages are recoverable. The court held that intentional, malicious harm to a pet constitutes an invasion of the owner's property rights sufficient to support recovery for the resulting mental suffering.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent by allowing recovery for emotional distress for intentional harm to a pet, treating such an act as more than mere damage to property. It carves out an important exception to the general rule limiting damages in cases involving personal property to their economic or replacement value. By distinguishing between negligent and intentional acts, the court aligns California with other jurisdictions that recognize the special status of pets and the profound emotional harm owners suffer when they are maliciously injured. This ruling provides a clear legal avenue for pet owners to seek compensation for their mental anguish, strengthening legal protections for animals against intentional cruelty.
