New York judge declares dog an immediate family member

A New York trial court has allowed a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NEID) to proceed in a case involving a dog that was struck and killed by a car. The ruling is under appeal.

The case, Trevor DeBlase and Nan DeBlase v. Mitchell Hill, involves a woman who was walking her family’s dog on a leash, crossing through an intersection, when a car struck and killed the dog. The lawsuit alleges that the driver failed to stop at a stop sign.

It’s typically very difficult to recover monetary damages for a person’s emotional distress when the person is not physically injured. New York law has limited such “bystander claims” to someone whose distress is caused by witnessing an immediate family member’s death or serious injury while also being in the “zone of danger” themself. 

The court’s ruling

The question the court had to resolve was whether the dog was an immediate family member under New York law for the purpose of NEID claims. This designation previously had been limited to spouses, children, and grandparents, with some hints that it might include other close relatives. 

Although the case itself did not involve veterinary medicine, the AVMA and New York State Veterinary Medical Society, along with other organizations, filed a brief opposing the noneconomic damages claim.

In a ruling that used strained reasoning, the judge said the dog qualified as an immediate family member, but only because all of these conditions were met: The dog was leashed to the body of the person who saw her family pet’s death or serious injury and who was herself personally exposed to danger. 

The judge worked very hard to limit the ruling, indicating that if the dog had not been leashed to the person, or if the dog had been leashed to a dog walker, the ruling would have been different. He also said the court did not contemplate allowing noneconomic damages if an immediate family member were not in the zone of danger. He specifically said the ruling should not apply broadly and should not apply to veterinarians. 

Why noneconomic damages are problematic

Veterinarians know as well as anyone the emotional impact that can accompany the loss of a pet. However, allowing for the payment of emotion-based damages can do nothing to address that loss. What it can do, if allowed and then applied more broadly, is drive up the cost of veterinary care. And that will harm pets by making it harder for their owners to provide the medical care they need.

There are other reasons why allowing noneconomic damages would be problematic. 

• It would place a greater value on human-animal relationships than on other very close human relationships, such as those between unmarried partners, cousins, other relatives, and close friends. Damages based on emotional attachment are typically allowed only in cases involving the loss of a close family member.
• Calculating compensation could become very complicated. While economic damages provide for a single person to be compensated for a specific amount, noneconomic damages have no clear dollar value to refer to and could be applied to many people with emotional attachments to an animal.

The AVMA has long opposed the awarding of noneconomic damages in cases involving pets, working in partnership with state and local veterinary groups like the New York State Veterinary Medical Society (NYSVMS). Read more about this case here on the NYSVMS website.