Vermont Rejects Non-Economic Damages for Loss of Pets
The Vermont Supreme Court has refused to expand liability to allow the recovery of non-economic damages in litigation involving the death of pets. Goodby v. Vetpharm, Inc., No. 2009 VT 52 (Vt., decided May 8, 2009). While the issue arose in a case involving the alleged negligence of a veterinarian and pharmaceutical company, the question whether pain and suffering damages are available to pet owners also came to the fore when melamine-contaminated pet food injured or killed cats and dogs throughout the United States and Canada in 2007.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon Public Policy Partner Victor Schwartz and Associate Phil Goldberg submitted an amicus curiae brief to the court on behalf of the Animal Health Institute, Federation of Dog Clubs, American Kennel Club, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, analyzing the legal and public policy implications of allowing such damages. The brief explained to the court how this proposed liability would depart from hundreds of years of settled law, allowing recovery for pets unavailable in comparable human situations and drastically increasing the cost of pet care, causing many pet owners to be unable or unwilling to provide their pets with necessary and proper medical treatment.
The court agreed, declining to adopt what it held would be “a dramatic alteration to the law.” In the past few years, state supreme and appellate courts in nearly 30 states have reaffirmed that emotional loss in pet injury and death cases is not compensable under any legal theory. According to the court, plaintiffs requested “a judicial expansion of law to recover for loss of a pet what the law does not allow for loss of a broad variety of critically loved human beings.” Stating that the changes requested“are better presented to the General Assembly,” the court found no compelling public policy reason to expand the Wrongful Death Statute to allow the recovery of non-economic damages for the loss of a pet.
