Injuries to Pets as Companions: Compensable?
Case: McMahon v. Craig (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1502.
Code: Cal. Civil Code section 3355.
Defendant kills or injures a person’s pet or other animal. Plaintiff claims that the pet was, not just a pet, but, a life companion. Should defendant pay extra damages for this peculiar value? In California, the answer is “no.â€
Civil Code section 3355 allows a plaintiff to recover additional damages if property has a peculiar value. However, that peculiar value does not extend to sentimental value such as an animal companion. It extends only to economic value. McMahon v. Craig (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1518. For example, the economic value of a dog could be its pedigree for breeding or its ability to win dog shows. Roos v. Loeser (1919) 41 Cal.App. 782. A cow’s value could be for its meat or for its ability to breed. King v. Karpe (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 344. All cases reject the notion of extra damages for sentimental attachment.
So, what’s love got to do with it? Nothing.
Crazy story. Keep them coming.