Owner of Attacked Service Dog Can File Claim of Emotional Distress by Zac Shaffer
Everyone who owns a pet knows the cardinal rule: Pets are family. Unfortunately, the law does not follow the same rules. In Ohio, like most, if not all other state laws, pets are considered and treated as nothing more than property. The precedent has been clear and unwavering. This concept traces its roots back to the mid-1900s and is even codified in current Ohio statutes. Essentially, emotional damages for the loss of a pet were not compensable under Ohio law, a plaintiff was only entitled to the cost of medical and/or vet bills, not emotional damages. But, as the saying goes, “times are changing.”
In a very recent case, the Fifth District Court of Appeals opened the door for those who were unfortunate enough to lose their furry family member in front of them. In Williams v. Toy, the plaintiff was walking her two beloved dogs when the defendant’s dog jumped over a fence and attacked. As a result of the attack, one of the plaintiff’s dogs passed away. Williams filed a lawsuit against the defendant claiming, among others, negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment to Toy and dismissed Plaintiff’s emotional distress claim. In its holding, the court relied on defendant’s arguments that a person is not entitled to recover non-economic damages for injuries to animals.
However, the appellate court overturned this decision. The Fifth District Court of Appeals found that a pet owner can bring a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress if they were in the zone of danger during the attack. While this decision is not directly stating that a pet owner can recover non-economic damages for the death of their beloved pet, it did open the door for change. Ultimately, the decision simply allowed this type of claim to survive summary judgment and allowed this plaintiff to be heard by a jury. It clearly shows that these types of claims are actionable and introduces non-economic damages to cases that historically case law has not permitted.
While this case was decided in the Fifth District, it does create a blueprint for plaintiff attorneys to recover emotional damages in these circumstances under Ohio law. Generally speaking, the Williams case expanded on additional issues regarding these types of claims, including a discussion regarding requirements for expert testimony pertaining to the genuineness of emotional distress claims. Despite the numerous procedural and evidentiary issues presented in the Williams case, the holding can be considered nothing less than groundbreaking.
So, while the future is still unknown, those who have tragically lost their “fur-baby” may now have a legal remedy for their suffering.
