One thing about the law is that it is always changing. I recently represented two clients regarding injuries to their pets. In doing so I came upon a new statute that "allows" pet owners to sue for another "natural person" who intentionally, willfully, recklessly or negligently injures or kills their pets.
NRS 41.740 (Damages for which person who kills or injures pet of another person is liable; punitive and noneconomic damages may not be awarded; limitation on amount of damages; exceptions) was added to the Nevada Revised Statutes in 2007 and is effective for actions that accrue on or after October 1, 2007. In other words, this Statute effects cases where the pet was injured on or after October 1, 2007.
NRS 41.740 states:
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, if a natural person intentionally, willfully, recklessly or negligently injures or kills the pet of another natural person, the person is liable for the following:
(a) The cost of veterinary care incurred by the owner because of the injury or death of the pet.
(b) If the pet is injured, any reduction in the market value of the pet caused by the injury.
(c) If the pet is killed, the market value of the pet and reasonable burial expenses.
(d) Reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by the owner in bringing an action pursuant to this section.
2. Punitive damages and noneconomic damages may not be awarded in an action brought under this section.
3. In an action brought under this section, the award of damages must not exceed $5,000 for each pet. . .
5. As used in this section:
(a) "Livestock" has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 569.0085.
(b) "Owner" means a natural person who owns, possesses, harbors, keeps or has control or custody of a pet.
(c) "Pet" means any domesticated dog or cat normally maintained in or near the household of its owner.
I checked into the legislative history of this statute and find it to be an interesting look into how our laws are enacted. This Bill (SB 298) was initially drafted by Senator Warren B. Hardy II (Clark County Senatorial District No. 12 who stated at a hearing:
"Senate Bill 298 is a bill that I brought forth at the request of a friend. His wife was walking their children to school with their family dog, who was a Yorkshire Terrier named Auggie. They were in the crosswalk and a lady, who they later found out was high on drugs, blew through the crosswalk narrowly missing his wife and kids, but unfortunately striking the dog. Miraculously, after several thousands of dollars in veterinary bills, the dog survived. They tried to recover some of the costs associated with bringing Auggie back to health, and realized that there was no mechanism in statute to allow them to pursue other than the property value, since dogs and cats are considered property. He asked me if I would bring legislation forward to try to remedy that."
By the time the Bill passed into the law that would become NRS 41.740, the preamble stated:
"Under general legal principles, a pet is considered the personal property of its owner. If a person negligently, recklessly, willfully or intentionally injures or kills the pet of another person, the owner of the pet may recover the same damages that the owner could recover for damage to or destruction of the owner's personal property. Section 1 of this bill replaces this general legal principle with a statutory provision which provides that a person who intentionally, willfully, recklessly or negligently injures or kills the dog or cat of another person is liable for certain economic damages and that the award of such damages must not exceed $5,000. Under section 1, punitive damages and noneconomic damages may not be awarded."
Pets, according to the Nevada Legislature are mere property. This law does not recognize the attachments between pets and their owners. When my dog, Murray, was put down, my thoughts were about him and the hole that would be left when he was gone. Not quite the same feeling I had when I lost my favorite jacket. In fact, Assemblyman William Horne recognized this in a hearing when he stated:
"The emotional part is a good thing in that I do not know of any pet owner who has not had a pet that has been ill or died and has not been emotionally affected. People who have pets generally have those types of attachments to them. They are not just inanimate objects that have a pulse roaming around the house or yard."
A pet owner could sue for property damage for injuries caused by another to her pet before the statute was written under general principles of law. In other words, the statute now "allows" a pet owner to sue for damages to her pet just like she could have if the statute had not been written - with one exception. Somehow, our legislature limited the amount of damages a pet owner could claim to $5,000.00. Here's how that came about...
Initially, as proposed by Senator Hardy, the statute allowed for a person to recover the following damages:
(a) The mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of companionship and other noneconomic damages suffered by each owner of the pet, but the recovery for such damages must not exceed $5,000 for each pet.
(b) The cost of veterinary care incurred by the owner because of the injury or death of the pet.
(c) If the pet is injured, any reduction in the market value of the pet caused by the injury.
(d) If the pet is killed, the market value of the pet and reasonable burial expenses.
(e) Reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by the owner in bringing an action pursuant to this section.
Notice that "mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of companionship and other noneconomic damages" suffered by each owner of the pet are limited to $5,000.00. There is no limit on the total amount of damages or on the amount of any of the other damages that could have been awarded under the Bill as initially drafted.
We go from there to the law as it was enacted which allows the following damages:
(a) The cost of veterinary care incurred by the owner because of the injury or death of the pet.
(b) If the pet is injured, any reduction in the market value of the pet caused by the injury.
(c) If the pet is killed, the market value of the pet and reasonable burial expenses.
(d) Reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by the owner in bringing an action pursuant to this section.
Section 2 of NRS 41.740 excludes any awards for punitive or noneconomic damages. Section 3 limits damages to $5,000 for each pet. Why the $5,000.00 limit? Perhaps it just got moved from the original limitation on noneconomic damages to all damages. A simple explanation - but wrong. As stated by Senator Terry Care:
"The $5,000 or less cap takes us into small claims court, and judges do not allow attorneys to be involved at this level. It yields a quicker resolution than someone filing in district court."
There it is. The Legislature capped the damages at $5,000.00, regardless of the actual damages, to keep attorneys from representing owners of injured or killed pets. Assemblyman Harry Mortenson made interesting observations during a hearing when he stated:
"There are a couple things I do not like about the bill. Let us say a neighbor backs out of his driveway and he hits the dog of another neighbor. He harms the dog a bit and he knows the law and says, 'Oh, man, my neighbor may spend $5,000 getting this dog fixed up; I had better run over him three more times and make sure he is dead.' He knows the dog is a mongrel and he is only worth the cost of a couple injections. That is uncouth, but I think it should say 'economic and emotional damages.' Someone buys a dog for several thousand dollars because it is purebred or whatever, and then he gets another one from the dog pound. His kids love both of these dogs equally. One dog gets poisoned and it is a $5,000 penalty, and if the other one gets killed, it is 75 cents or whatever. I am a little unhappy with not putting 'emotional' in there."
The Legislature started with a statute that did not limit damages and, recognizing the bond between pets and their owners, allowed the owners to recover up to $5,000.00 in emotional damages. In the end, we have a statute that claims pets are no more than mere property and limits the damages a pet owner incurs for caring for her pet - even in a case where a person intentionally or wilfully injures or kills the pet.
As I noted at the beginning of this post, the law is always changing. This law, which I feel is a poor law, can be rewritten or removed from the Nevada Revised Statutes. If you feel the same, you can contact your state representatives (assemblypersons and senators) to discuss your concerns with them. Nevadans can go to the http://mapserve.leg.state.nv.us/website/lcb/viewer.htm to identify their state (and federal) representatives.
Author Resource:
Donald C. Kudler, Esq. is an attorney practicing in the Las Vegas, Nevada law firm of Cap & Kudler. Additional information can be found at capandkudler.com, http://www.vegaslitigator.com/blog, or vegasbusinesslaw.com/blog. He can be reached at (702) 878-8778 or at donaldkudler@capandkudler.com.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.articlesfree.co.uk/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.articlesfree.co.uk/images/rss.jpg "XML Feed For RSS")