Appeals Court Affirms Award of Veterinary Expenses for Injured Dog, but Extends Prohibition of Emotional Distress Damages.

The appeals court affirmed a lower court award of veterinary expenses to owners trying to save their small dog after an unprovoked attack by an unleashed German shepherd.  The Bichon Frisé had severe internal injuries and external wounds requiring emergency surgery to the tune of $8,000. In addition to vet costs, the court also awarded the replacement value of the dog. Because Massachusetts law considers dog personal property, the owner of the German shepherd argued that damages should be capped at the market value of the dog, regardless of the reasonableness of the veterinary costs necessary to treat the dog's injuries. See Irwin v. Degtiarov. The appeals court found that reasonable veterinary costs can be recovered even if they exceed the market value or replacement cost of an animal injured by a dog. Whether particular veterinary costs are reasonable, and whether it is reasonable to incur them, will depend on the facts of each case.  Among the factors to be considered are the type of animal involved, the severity of its injuries, the purchase and/or replacement price of the animal, its age and special traits or skills, its income-earning potential, whether it was maintained as part of the owner's household, the likelihood of success of the medical procedures employed, and whether the medical procedures involved are typical and customary to treat the injuries at issue. Once again, the appeals court affirmed that although the owner's affection for the animal may be considered in assessing the reasonableness of the decision to treat the animal, the owner cannot recover for his or her own emotional distress. Nor is the owner entitled to recover for the loss of the animal's companionship. An earlier appeals court case stated that emotional distress damages were not available because in that case the owner did not witness the damage. See Krasnecky v. Meffen.  Despite not being a question in this present case, the court suggests even if an owner witnesses the attack, he or she cannot get emotional distress damages.  The Supreme Judicial Court has yet to take up this question, but this ruling seems to close the door on the possibility of emotional distress damages.