Many of us consider our pets to be part of our families. We love them, care for them and want the best for them. But a court ruling quietly passed this year takes this concept too far — opening the door to dangerous consequences that could include liability and harm to pet stores, veterinarians, pet industry manufacturers, animal shelters and rescues. The result will be higher costs for pet owners and lower pet ownership and adoption rates.
This summer, a court in New York ruled on a tragic case involving a pet Dachshund hit by a car in 2023. The dog’s owner sued the driver and included claims for emotional distress caused by the accident. Claims for emotional distress (or “non-economic damages”) have been carefully limited by courts for decades, requiring that the plaintiff be in a “zone of danger” and that distress must be caused by injury to “immediate family” — among many limitations.
Ignoring the input of experienced pet leaders, including the American Veterinary Medicine Association and the Pet Advocacy Network, the judge in the case ruled that one of the plaintiffs could recover emotional distress in the limited circumstances presented in the case. The judge’s strained decision avoided prior case law and decided that in the limited circumstances presented in the case, the death of the dog should be treated like a death to an “immediate family” member and entitle the owner to emotional distress damages. While the case continues and is expected to be appealed, the damage to the pet industry is already occurring.
And it’s not just one court ruling. We’re seeing more and more state legislation attempting to raise the ceiling on legal compensation for issues involving pets, including emotional or other non-economic damages. Emotional damage is subjective, impossible to calculate and can lead to out-of-control judgments. Changes to pet liability laws like this are similar to the efforts of the animal liberation movement (led by PETA) to give legal personhood to animals. PETA has already attempted to sue over animal ownership, claiming that owning orcas amounted to slavery in violation of the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Liability laws that treat animals like human family members may very well be the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent — except the camel’s owner will get sued for invasion of privacy caused by the nosey camel. The slippery slope is very real. As is often the case in these situations, the only ones who truly win will be the lawyers.
While we are all sympathetic to the plight of this dog’s owner in New York, this ruling and the broader efforts like it have significant and dangerous implications for the pet industry and society at large. The direct impact of greater legal liability surrounding pet ownership would be to increase the price of running any business involving animals, including live animals, pet products and services. The risk of large, unpredictable judgments and legal costs in the death or injury of a pet will increase insurance costs, driving up the costs for business owners and, in turn, increasing costs for customers.
Advertisement
The impact on veterinarians is easy to understand. Malpractice insurance premiums — which are already substantial — would surge as the legal costs and possibility of massive emotional distress judgments are factored in by insurers. Many independent or rural vets could be priced out of the profession entirely. Pet owners would bear the brunt of these increased costs, likely causing even more families to delay or forgo care for their pets.
Boarders? Groomers? Unintentional harm to an animal could expose a business to disproportionate liability and costs. There is no reason to believe shelters or rescues would be immune, either — forced to raise their adoption fees or go out of business entirely.
Consider the liability exposure of a manufacturer or retailer for a relatively routine or minor incident: A dog chokes on a treat or a toy. The possibility of massive legal judgments based on emotional distress or other non-economic damages would tower over traditional damages like the replacement cost of the toy or a veterinary bill. Businesses that produce pet products, particularly small or specialized brands, simply cannot absorb the risk of this kind of legal uncertainty. The end result? Fewer choices for pet owners and dramatically higher costs for pet-safe products.
There is, of course, an even more perilous outcome to guard against. Changing legal standards related to pet ownership and pet-personhood movements could impact criminal law, too. A pet injury during grooming could go from a customer service problem to assault. Behavioral training for animals could carry enormous implications. While this might sound satisfying to some extreme activists, does our society really want a dog groomer or shelter worker to be arrested for unintentionally causing harm? Plus, no one needs the law further complicating the difficult choices pet owners already face around end-of-life care for their beloved pets.
As this legal landscape evolves, the Pet Advocacy Network is actively engaged in advocating for reasonable legislation that protects both animals and the people who care for them. From ensuring access to affordable veterinary care to defending against legal overreach, PAN remains committed to preserving the human-animal bond without introducing excessive liability that would harm the very pets we all want to protect.
Radical changes to the law and out-of-control damages for injuries to our animals lead to rising costs for pets and pet services that are passed on to pet owners, who are already facing a pet affordability crisis. According to a PetSmart survey, 52% of pet owners say they skipped needed veterinary care in the past year, commonly due to cost. Legal changes like this case would add even more financial strain to owning a pet.
Advertisement
We all feel compassion for the pet owner who suffers a loss like the Dachshund owner in New York — a pet that was undoubtedly part of the “family.” Proposals to expand the law or strained legal decisions to actually treat your pet like a person may come from a place of compassion, but the cure is worse than the disease. Higher liability costs and undefined legal risks lead to higher consumer costs that lead to fewer people owning pets. When we make it too expensive for people to own pets in the first place or care for them properly, we deny people the love, companionship and happiness delivered by pet ownership and the human-animal bond. After all, it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.
