A Dog Is Personal Property in Delaware
No matter how much you might love your dog, under the laws of Delaware, a dog is considered personal property. As a Delaware lawyer who loves dogs, I don't like it but I guess we have to live with a recent court opinion that explains the significance of this.
A bloodhound went into a neighbor’s yard and attacked the neighbor’s Yorkshire terrier. The poor Yorkie was seriously injured, and the neighbor spent more than $14,000 in vet bills.The neighbor then sued the owner of the bloodhound for the vet bills she already incurred plus any future bills, and her emotional distress.
The court ruled that because a dog is personal property, its owner cannot sue for medical bills as an injured person could. Instead, the measure of damages would be the same as used for a damaged sofa, car or other inanimate object. If the bloodhound had chewed up an oriental rug, the most the neighbor could recover is the market value of the rug. Therefore, the most the neighbor could recover for her injured “Yorkie” is the market value of the dog.
The judge’s written opinion contains the following instructions:
“While the Court is mindful that dogs are often beloved family members, and that many owners will spend inordinate sums of money to keep their pets healthy, the law in Delaware has not advanced to the point where it has carved out a personal injury action for injured dogs, wherein expert veterinary witnesses would testify, medical expenses would be placed in evidence, and pain and suffering and the degree of permanency would be measured by a jury. Obviously, the animal cannot be deposed, there is no provision for independent veterinary examinations, a pet dog is not likely to have lost earning capacity, and there is no loss of consortium claim (as dogs do not marry), nor are there any other similarities between a personal injury case involving an injured human plaintiff and an owner's loss of her dog, as in this case. If a change in the law is to occur, it is up to the Legislature, not the Courts, to decide that a dog named Fido, a cat named Boots, a hamster named Harry, or a fish called Wanda can have some new species of personal injury action brought on their behalf.”
In dismissing the claim for emotional distress, the Court said:
“while the Court is mindful that loss of, or injury to, a pet may be a devastating emotional experience, under our law the dog is property, not a person, no matter how great an effort has been made on the part of the owner to humanize it.”
