newjerseynewsroom.com

BY JOE TYRRELL

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

You may consider your pets to be part of the family, but the New Jersey Supreme Court does not.

The high court has ruled Joyce McDougall of Morris Plains is not entitled to emotional damages after witnessing the death of her dog Angel, a Maltese-poodle mix who was mauled by a neighbor's dog running loose five years ago.

The decision, written by Justice Helen Hoens, upheld lower courts, which found that McDougall was entitled to $5,000, more than the cost of a replacement dog, because Angel was "a well-trained pet." But the ruling noted that courts historically have awarded emotional damages only when a plaintiff had "a marital or intimate, familial relationship" with a victim.

The decision can be viewed on-line here.

McDougall was walking 9-year-old Angel in the neighborhood in June 2007 when a large dog owned by Charlot Lamm ran out and grabbed Angel by the neck and shook the pooch to death. Lamm was represented by attorney Lewis Stein.

Hoens wrote that McDougall's case, argued by attorney Brian R. O'Toole, depended "on implicit assumptions that there is a class of 'companion animals' with which their owners interact in a manner akin to a relationship with other humans and that this relationship should be considered in determining compensation."

While that may be a truism in terms of human behavior, the justices said that would create problems on a point of law that has been narrowly construed in New Jersey. A finding for a pet owner might open to the door to an emotional distress claim if "she had the misfortune of watching the neighbor's child, whom she regarded as her own, torn apart by a wild animal," the decision said.

That would be inconsistent with current law, which already provides measures to address dangerous dogs, Hoens wrote. Moreover, given the individual nature of relationships with pets, "there is no clear line of demarcation we can draw to decide" which owners suffer emotional distress, the court said.

The justices said they "do not question the plaintiff's argument that, for many people, their pets are not merely property." But that was already addressed in the 1998 appellate decision that permits owners to recover more than replacement costs of a dead pet. "Nor is sufficient to describe some pets as companion animals," the court said, because that term "would equally apply to innumerable human relationships," such as a babysitter or housekeeper, the decision said.

The decision accurately noted that most states similarly have not upheld distress claims in the death of pets, but this is an expanding area of law. Illinois and Tennessee have laws allowing distress claims, while courts in Florida, Hawaii and Louisiana also have recognized them.

Joe Tyrrell may be reached at jtyrrell@newjerseynewsroom. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or followed on Twitter @ jtyrrell87