[ back ]
If the Vet Kills Your Cat, Can You Sue for Emotional Loss?
The Goodbys took their two cats to veterinarian Yankauskas (the Vet) to be treated for high blood pressure. Medicine was prescribed by Vet. A refill prescription manufactured by Vetpharm Inc. killed the cats. The refill was twenty times more potent than the first dose. When the cats got sick, Vet treated them for other illnesses. Both died.
Goodbys sued the Vet and Vetpharm claiming both were negligent. They sought money damages for the loss of companionship of their cats, including the emotional distress of having forced a fatal treatment on them, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the case. It decided that because animals are personal property, the measure of damages would be the replacement cost of the cats. Goodbys appealed. They were joined by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Vermont Federation of Dog Clubs, and American Kennel Club.
Goodbys argued the Court had previously recognized that the value of pets is derived from their association with humans who form a strong emotional bond with them. Because of this relationship the cats should not be regarded merely as a “thing” like a farm animal. Instead they should be considered as a family member and treated in law the same way as humans who can sue for loss of a family member under the Wrongful Death Act.
The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court said possibly the measure of damages could include the value of the pet to the owner rather than merely the replacement cost for a stranger - but that was not what the plaintiffs asked for. If emotional distress damages are to be awarded, it ruled, the legislature must pass a law saying so. The legislature created the Wrongful Death Act allowing damages for emotional loss arising out of loss of love and companionship with certain humans. However, the law only applied to close relatives, not, for example a fiancé, a grandparent, a step child, niece or nephew. How, then could the Court make up a law distinguishing pets from farm animals, or, for example, the sentimental loss of physical property all of which cause humans distress? The legislature, it ruled, did not even award losses for critically loved human beings. This should not be a “judge made” law.
Classic separation of powers doctrine requires Judges to interpret laws, not make them up – a fruitful field for heated political discourse. If we are becoming a sentimental society, the Court says, that move is for your elected representatives. Goodby v. Vetpharm Inc. Valerie Yankauskas DVM et al 2009 VT 52.
[ back ]
