Florida ruling challenges pet status precedent

Tallahassee, Fla.-A recent appellate court ruling rejects a 1978 precedent-setting decision that allowed non-economic damages for the loss of pets.

Florida, one of a handful of states in which legal precedence allows civil reparation for emotional distress and loss of companionship in malpractice and wrongful death cases, now offers its courts a second opinion to consider. Last month in a First District Court of Appeal decision concerning a veterinary malpractice case, judges cited the "impact rule" as means to prohibit any plaintiff recovery for emotional distress damages.

In plain terms, the impact rule requires the plaintiff sustain physical damage due to psychological trauma experienced in order to receive non-economic recovery. The court also states emotional damages do not lawfully pertain to cases involving animals.

"The impact rule involves familial relationships, such as injury to a child as a result of malpractice," the court says in its opinion. "We decline to extend this exception to malpractice cases involving animals."

The ruling contradicts the landmark 1978 decision in Knowles Animal Hosp., Inc. v. Willis, where the appellate court ruled that a trial judge did not err in a veterinary malpractice action when awarding pain and suffering damages stemming from injury to a pet.

Another view

In this latest case, Dr. Albert Byas was being sued by former client Robert Bruns Kennedy for negligence and emotional distress damages stemming from the death of the owner's Bassett Hound. While the case does not differ greatly to the one heard in 1978, it received a more favorable review, says Elizabeth Parsons, the defendant's attorney.

"The 1978 court did rule that in the negligence context, it was possible to make an emotional pain or suffering case against a veterinarian for negligence," she says. "Now what's happened is you've had another district court of appeal look at the issue and disagree. Obviously, we're pretty happy with the results."