The state's highest court Tuesday considered whether owners of a dog — in this case, an 8-year-old mixed-breed dachshund named Lola — should receive the market value of the animal in damages when the animal's death is caused by someone's negligence.
Or is a family dog worth more than what the market will bear?
Lively arguments before the Georgia Supreme Court prompted justices to question the disparate outcomes that are sure to come when owners sue an allegedly negligent kennel or vet for damages over a lost pet. Some expressed concern about Lola’s case upsetting century-old precedents. At least one justice wondered whether the difficult question of how to award damages over a lost pet is best left up to the Legislature.
The court is expected to issue its decision in four to six months.
The case involves a lawsuit brought by Elizabeth and Bob Monyak against Barking Hound Village. Lola and the family's other dog, a Labrador retriever named Callie, were housed at the upscale Atlanta kennel for 12 days in 2012 while the Monyaks were on vacation. The suit alleges that Lola developed acute kidney failure because the kennel wrongly gave an anti-inflammatory drug to Lola instead of to Callie, who was supposed to get the drug for her arthritis.
Lola died about nine months later, after the Monyaks incurred more than $67,000 in medical costs and expenses. She was cared for by a local vet, an animal hospital in the metro area and by the vet staff at the University of Florida, where she received dialysis treatments. The Monyaks are seeking recovery of those expenses and want a jury to decide damages commensurate with Lola’s value to the family.
Barking Hound Village strongly denies any wrongdoing in causing Lola’s death.
On Tuesday, the kennel’s lawyer, Joel McKie, told the justices that Georgia law only allows recovery of the market value of a lost pet. In Lola’s case, he said, she was a rescue dog who came with no purchase price and, though beloved by the Monyaks, didn’t have any market value. For this reason, McKie said, the Monyaks may not recover damages.
Justice Harold Melton asked if this meant that owners of a mixed-breed dog recovered from a pound and which was worth only $50 could recover no more than the $50 in market value, even though they had paid $300 in medical bills to treat the dog’s injuries.
“That’s correct, your honor,” McKie answered. “It seems like a harsh position” but that’s Georgia law and what has been accepted by courts in other states.
If Georgia wants to change that position, it should let the General Assembly set the potential damages for incurred medical expenses, McKie said. He noted Tennessee’s Legislature set a $7,500 cap on recovery of dogs’ and cats’ vet bills.
“It’s founded in part on the unintended consequences of allowing unending veterinary expenses,” McKie said. Unlimited damages in such cases could have far-reaching impacts, such as increased insurance for vets and higher costs for services.
Bob Monyak, who like his wife is an attorney, argued the case on the family’s behalf.
Numerous other states allow juries to decide the actual value of a dog, he told the justices. “The sky has not fallen in those jurisdictions.”
When asked how to decide a dog’s actual value, Monyak said juries can consider whether the pet was loyal, obedient, a good guard dog and fun to play with.
Justice David Nahmias got Monyak to concede that prior court decisions involving the value of lost or damaged property — which pets are under the law — have never allowed the collection of damages based on the actual value of an animal.
Nahmias also expressed concern over the disparate monetary demands for a lost pet made by one family that could afford tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses as opposed to a poor family that had the same type of dog and could not afford any vet bills. That dog’s owners would put their pet down, Nahmias said.
Monetary caps that rely on market value “make sure we don’t have those weird disparities when one owner spends more than another owner on something that has the same value,” Nahmias said.
Monyak agreed that juries hearing cases involving two families with such different financial positions and which had the same kinds of dogs would likely reach different verdicts.
“But I don’t know how you’d ever solve that without equalizing everyone’s income,” he said. “And that doesn’t mean we throw everything out the window and our solution is no remedy at all.”
About the Author
