Strickland v. Kathryn

• Decision Date: 05 April 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–0047.,12–0047.
• Citation: 397 S.W.3d 184,56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 470
• Parties: Carla STRICKLAND, Petitioner, v. Kathryn and Jeremy MEDLEN, Respondents.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

397 S.W.3d 184

56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 470

Carla STRICKLAND, Petitioner,

v.Kathryn and Jeremy MEDLEN, Respondents.

No. 12–0047.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 5, 2013.

Alison M. Rowe, John Hill Cayce Jr., Mallory Ann Beagles, Paul Boudloche, for Petitioner.

Randall E. Turner, Sondrea King, Susan Bleil, for Respondent.

Justice WILLETT delivered the opinion of the Court.^*

Beauty without Vanity, Strength without Insolence, Courage without Ferocity, And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices¹

Texans love their dogs. Throughout the Lone Star State, canine companions are treated—and treasured—not as mere personal property but as beloved friends and confidants, even family members. Given the richness that companion animals add to our everyday lives, losing “man's best friend” is undoubtedly sorrowful. Even the gruffest among us tears up (every time) at the end of Old Yeller.²

This case concerns the types of damages available for the loss of a family pet. If a cherished dog is negligently killed, can a dollar value be placed on a heartsick owner's heartfelt affection? More pointedly, may a bereaved dog owner recover emotion-based damages for the loss? In 1891, we effectively said no, announcing a “true rule” that categorized dogs as personal property, ³ thus disallowing non-economic damages. In 2011, however, a court of appeals said yes,⁴ effectively creating a novel—and expansive—tort claim: loss of companionship for the wrongful death of a pet.

In today's case, involving a family dog that was accidentally euthanized, we must decide whether to adhere to our restrictive, 122–year–old precedent classifying pets as property for tort-law purposes, or to instead recognize a new common-law loss-of-companionship claim that allows noneconomic damages rooted solely in emotional attachment, a remedy the common law has denied those who suffer the wrongful death of a spouse, parent, or child,⁵ and is available in Texas only by statute.⁶

We acknowledge the grief of those whose companions are negligently killed. Relational attachment is unquestionable. But it is also uncompensable. We reaffirm our long-settled rule, which tracks the overwhelming weight of authority nationally, plus the bulk of amicus curiae briefs from several pet-welfare organizations (who understand the deep emotional bonds between people and their animals): Pets are property in the eyes of the law, and we decline to permit non-economic damages rooted solely in an owner's subjective feelings. True, a beloved companion dog is not a fungible, inanimate object like, say, a toaster. The term “property” is not a pejorative but a legal descriptor, and its use should not be misconstrued as discounting the emotional attachment that pet owners undeniably feel. Nevertheless, under established legal doctrine, recovery in pet-death cases is, barring legislative reclassification, limited to loss of value, not loss of relationship.

We reverse the court of appeals' judgment and render judgment in favor of the Petitioner.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In June 2009, Avery, a mixed-breed dog owned by Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen, escaped the family's backyard and was promptly picked up by Fort Worth animal control. Jeremy went to retrieve Avery but lacked enough money to pay the required fees. The shelter hung a “hold for owner” tag on Avery's cage to alert employees that the Medlens were coming for Avery and ensure he was not euthanized. Despite the tag, shelter worker Carla Strickland mistakenly placed Avery on the euthanasia list, and he was put to sleep.

Jeremy and his two children learned of Avery's fate a few days later when they returned to retrieve him. Devastated, the Medlens sued Strickland for causing Avery's death and sought “sentimental or intrinsic value” damages since Avery had little or no market value and “[could not] be replaced.” Strickland specially excepted, contending such damages are unrecoverable in pet-death cases. The trial court directed the Medlens to amend their pleadings to “state a claim for damages recognized at law.” The Medlens amended their petition to drop the words “sentimental value” but realleged damages for Avery's “intrinsic value.” Strickland specially excepted on the same basis, and the trial court, sure that Texas law barred such damages, dismissed the suit with prejudice.

The court of appeals reversed, becoming the first Texas court to hold that a dog owner may recover intangible loss-of-companionship damages in the form of intrinsic or sentimental-value property damages. Addressing our 1891 decision in Heiligmann v. Rose,⁷ which pegged dog-loss damages to market value or a value ascertained from the dog's “usefulness and services,” the court of appeals stated, “Texas law has changed greatly since 1891” and “sentimental damages may now be recovered for ... all types of personal property.” ⁸ Specifically, the court said our more recent, non-dog property cases “explicitly held that where personal property has little or no market value, and its main value is in sentiment, damages may be awarded based on this intrinsic or sentimental value.” ⁹ The court of appeals pivoted, too, on our expression in Heiligmann that the dogs “were of a special value to the owner,” ¹⁰ and took from this phrase that special value “may be derived from the attachment that an owner feels for his pet.” ¹¹ Emphasizing these iron truths—that “[d]ogs are unconditionally devoted to their owners” ¹² and owners, reciprocally, have a deep attachment “to their beloved family pets” ¹³—the court of appeals declared“the special value of ‘man's best friend’ should be protected.” ¹⁴ Thus, given “the special position pets hold in their family, we see no reason why existing law should not be interpreted to allow recovery in the loss of a pet at least to the same extent as any other personal property.” ¹⁵ Reinstating the Medlens' claim, the court of appeals concluded: “Because an owner may be awarded damages based on the sentimental value of lost personal property, and because dogs are personal property, the trial court erred in dismissing the Medlens' action against Strickland.” ¹⁶

This appeal followed, posing a single, yet significant, issue: whether emotional-injury damages are recoverable for the negligent destruction of a dog.¹⁷

II. Discussion

America is home to 308 million humans ¹⁸ and 377 million pets. ¹⁹ In fact, “American pets now outnumber American children by more than four to one.” ²⁰ In a nation where roughly 62% of households own a pet—with about 78 million dogs and 86 million cats (and 160 million fish) ²¹—it is unsurprising that many animal owners view their pets not as mere personal property but as full-fledged family members, and treat them as such:

• A study found that 70% of pet owners thought of their pets as family members.²²

• 45% of dog owners take their pets on vacation.²³

• Over 50% of pet owners say they would rather be stranded on a deserted island with a dog or cat than with a human.²⁴

• 50% of pet owners report being “very likely” to put their own lives in danger to save their pets, and 33% are “somewhat likely” to risk their lives. ²⁵

• In 2012, Americans spent roughly $53 billion on their pets.²⁶

The human-animal bond is indeed powerful. As the Medlens' second amended petition states: “The entire Medlen family was devastated by the loss of Avery, who was like a family member to them.” Countless Texas families share this pets-as-family view, but Texas law, for a century-plus, has labeled them as “property” for purposes of tort-law recovery.

A. Our Precedent Limits Damages in Dog–Death Tort Cases to “Market Value, If the Dog Has Any,” or “Special or Pecuniary Value” Linked to the Dog's “Usefulness and Services”

1. Our 1891 Heiligmann Decision Ties “Special Value” to a Dog's Economic Attributes, Not Subjective or Emotional Considerations

Our analysis begins with Heiligmann v. Rose,²⁷ our 1891 case upholding $75 in damages for the poisoning of three “well trained” Newfoundland dogs. Heiligmann articulated some key valuation principles for animal cases. First, we classified dogs as personal property for damages purposes, not as something giving rise to personal-injury damages.²⁸ Second, we declared a “true rule” for damages that flags two elements: (1) “market value, if the dog has any,” ²⁹ or (2) “some special or pecuniary value to the owner, that may be ascertained by reference to the usefulness and services of the dog.” ³⁰

In Heiligmann, the dogs “were of fine breed, and well trained,” with one using different barks to signal whether an approaching person was a man, woman, or child. While the owner could sell each dog for $5, they had no market value beyond that, but the Court upheld damages of $25 each:

There is no evidence in this case that the dogs had a market value, but the evidence is ample showing the usefulness and services of the dogs, and that they were of special value to the owner. If the jury from the evidence should be satisfied that the dogs were serviceable and useful to the owner, they could infer their value when the owner, by evidence, fixes some amount upon which they could form a basis.³¹

The Medlens insist that Heiligmann does not limit recovery to an amount based solely on the dog's economic usefulness and services. Rather, when the Court mentioned certain dogs lacking market value but having “a special value to the owner,” we meant something far broader and distinct from the dogs' commercial attributes. Similarly, argue the Medlens, when the Court in Heiligmann noted a dog's “special or pecuniary value to the owner,” the word “or” indicates two distinct categories of non-market value dogs—those with a special value to the owner, and those with a pecuniary value to the owner. We disagree.

Given its ordinary, contextual meaning, Heiligmann tied the recovery of “special or pecuniary value” to the dogs' “usefulness and services” ³²—their economic value, not their sentimental value. While we referenced evidence ...