Price v. Brown
545 Pa. 216, 680 A.2d 1149, 1996 Pa. LEXIS 1516 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Allegations of breach of a bailment agreement are insufficient to state a cause of action against a veterinarian for injury or death suffered by an animal entrusted for surgical and professional treatment; such claims must be brought under a theory of professional negligence.
Facts:
- Tracy Price delivered her English Bulldog to Dr. Nancy O. Brown, a veterinarian, for surgical treatment to correct a prolapsed urethra.
- Dr. Brown performed the surgery on August 30, 1991.
- The evening after the surgery, Price visited the dog at the veterinary hospital, observed it panting strenuously and appearing groggy, and inquired about its condition.
- Price requested that the dog be monitored on a 24-hour basis and was assured by an unidentified agent of Dr. Brown that this would occur.
- Price alleged that the dog was left unattended after midnight that evening.
- During the morning of September 1, 1991, the dog died.
Procedural Posture:
- Tracy Price filed a complaint against Nancy O. Brown in a trial court, asserting liability based solely upon a theory of bailment for her dog's death.
- Dr. Brown filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to Price's complaint.
- The trial court sustained Dr. Brown's preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding that allegations of a breach of a bailment agreement, without more, were insufficient to state a cause of action against a veterinarian for death or injury to an animal under professional care.
- Price appealed the trial court's order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
- The Superior Court reversed the trial court's order, finding the complaint sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of a bailment agreement, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
- Dr. Brown then filed a petition for allocatur (review), which was granted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 a complaint alleging breach of a bailment agreement state a valid cause of action against a veterinarian for injury or death suffered by an animal entrusted for surgical and professional treatment?
Opinions:
Majority - Zappala, Justice
No, a complaint based upon an alleged breach of a bailment agreement is insufficient to state a cause of action against a veterinarian who has performed surgery on an animal when the animal suffers an injury as a result or does not survive the surgery. While a bailment involves the delivery of personal property (which dogs are considered) for a purpose with an implied contract for redelivery, this framework does not apply when the personalty is delivered for professional services that require specialized knowledge and skill. Veterinary medicine, like human medicine or law, involves such professional duties and is extensively regulated. Therefore, claims arising from a veterinarian's professional treatment must be framed as professional negligence, requiring the plaintiff to plead and prove a failure to exercise the appropriate standard of care, rather than relying on the prima facie case of non-return in a bailment action. The Superior Court erred by selectively reviewing Price's allegations and ignoring the professional nature of Dr. Brown’s services, effectively treating them no differently than those of a kennel operator or dog groomer.
Dissenting - Nix, Chief Justice
Yes, a complaint based upon an alleged breach of a bailment agreement can state a cause of action against a veterinarian for injury or death suffered by an animal entrusted for surgical and professional treatment. Chief Justice Nix agreed with Justice Castille that sufficient facts were alleged to state a cause of action grounded in a breach of bailment contract. He emphasized that a bailment is the delivery of personalty for a purpose with an implied contract for redelivery, and Price's allegations that she delivered her English Bulldog for treatment and the dog subsequently died fit squarely within this definition. While acknowledging that a plaintiff can properly allege a cause of action grounded in professional negligence, he contended that this does not preclude a plaintiff from also pursuing a claim based on a breach of bailment if the facts support it, and that the plaintiff should have the option to pursue either theory.
Dissenting - Castille, Justice
Yes, a complaint based upon a breach of bailment agreement is sufficient to state a cause of action against a veterinarian who performs surgical procedures on an animal where the animal suffers an injury or expires as a result of these procedures. Justice Castille argued that the established definition of a bailment, which applies to the delivery of personal property like dogs for a specific purpose and expected return, fits the facts of the case. He noted that Pennsylvania law recognizes dogs as personal property and that animals have historically been subjects of bailment agreements. The existing standard of proof for bailment cases, which requires the bailee to explain the loss and for the bailor to prove negligence if the explanation is adequate, places a reasonable burden on veterinarians. He disagreed with extending medical malpractice principles to veterinarians, citing the fundamental differences between human and animal patients (e.g., animals cannot sue) and asserting that such a significant expansion of legal doctrine should originate from the General Assembly, not the courts. Therefore, he believed bailment theories provide an adequate and fair remedy.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between general bailment claims and claims arising from professional services, particularly when personal property (like an animal) is involved. It establishes that when a professional like a veterinarian is engaged for specialized treatment, the appropriate legal framework for alleged misconduct is professional negligence, not the more general breach of bailment. This ruling limits the application of bailment theories in professional contexts and mandates that plaintiffs plead and prove a breach of professional duty, rather than relying on the simple failure to return property in its original condition. This has broader implications for how plaintiffs must frame lawsuits against any professional whose services involve the care or modification of personal property.
